Post #1,475
7/11/01 1:47:50 PM
|
My way?
The kid wins, every time, for me.
For very twisted definition of "win" as "win" seems to mean "take the kids away from the parents because we really don't know but we know better". No one wins
where the social services have played it your way
Just what exactly is "my way"?
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #1,480
7/11/01 1:54:12 PM
|
I'm sorry
Not being clear.
I understood "your way", such as it is (i.e. largely undefined except by my assumptions (oops)) to mean "innocent until proven guilty".
That methodology has certainly led to dead children in the UK.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,483
7/11/01 2:06:38 PM
|
Re: I'm sorry
I understood "your way", such as it is (i.e. largely undefined except by my assumptions (oops)) to mean "innocent until proven guilty".
"My way" is simply that social actions have nearly police-state-like powers but without similar checks on their powers and that can lead to serious abuses, even unintentionally of power. "My way" is simply that any agent of that state with that much power should also have those restrictions
That methodology has certainly led to dead children in the UK.
And the converse is true as well. Abuse of power leads to destroyed innocent lives. That, at least in theory, is a price we've determined to pay as as a society. Power is not left unchecked and hopefully the number of innocents falsy prosecuted is kept low and the cost is that sometimes the guilty go free. Sometimes the innocent die so that the innocent can be free. It's a nasty line to dane on The emotionalism that this deals with children cannot over run reason because it works both ways. It's sickening when a child is abused; it's sickening when a family is ripped apart
Jay
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #1,487
7/11/01 2:20:18 PM
|
Is that a price that you're willing to pay?
Are you prepared to let your children die so that another parent's right to privacy in parenting is preserved?
In other words, are your children less important than your Liberty and your Rights?
It's a terrible, terrible question to ask, one parent to another.
And for the record, I'm not prepared to pay that price.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,489
7/11/01 2:24:48 PM
|
Turn it around
I'm damn well ready to let someone else's child die so that mine can live with me
|
Post #1,492
7/11/01 2:34:47 PM
|
I'm the someone else
And I won't let your children die just so that mine can live with *me*.
Live children are infinitely more appealing than dead ones, wherever they are.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,493
7/11/01 2:51:07 PM
|
Couple of nits...
And I won't let your children die
First off, its really not within your baliwick, unless there's something you've not told us. :)
Live children are infinitely more appealing than dead ones, wherever they are.
The question is on which side to we err? As you put it, they can't win. And you're right.
But its a very tricky line...
And Jay's point - that if we err on the side of "caution" that you seem to indicate, that we rip families apart on the mere witchhunt for evidence, that that is overall worse, than the (far less likey to happen) case of well-hidden child abuse that results in a death - (at least, that's how I read it) - I think is well taken.
Boy, we're really burning up the philosophy today, aren't we? :)
Traumatizing and turning the lives of hundreds of families to shit (And have the parents have to beg, if they're ever allowed to see their children again - and also sending the children away from home, into strangers home's, which may or may not be *better*) for the sake of potentially stopping the murder of a child.......
I gotta side with Jay on this one.. you've got to have some harder evidence (because, his other point is similarly well taken - the Social Service people do NOT have to get a warrent, show cause, and they CAN remove from you your family - on a whim, with very little recourse.) to make that call.
As cold as it might sound.
Addison
|
Post #1,494
7/11/01 2:56:12 PM
|
Re: Couple of nits...
Peter already said that they DO need warrants in Britain.
So the system here is broken, not the philosophy.
Witchhunt is a pretty charged word. Makes it sound pretty bad, doesn't it. I don't see an investigation the same as a witchhunt.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #1,499
7/11/01 3:07:09 PM
|
Would it?
And I won't let your children die just so that mine can live with *me*.
Would it be solace to you? "Oh well, they took my kids away and I'm branded a child-abuser for life, but at least someone else's child might live"
How much paranoia is worth it? How many families that are wrongly accused are worth the off chance you might save one? 10, 100, 1,000. How do you even know how many kids have actually been saved?
How do you know if your child who has been taken by the state is even safe?
============================================ CHELSEA, Maine - The high chair was tipped over in an unfinished part of the basement and smeared with blood when detectives arrived. Strewn about were strips of duct tape with clumps of hair.
The horror chamber described by police is where 5-year-old Logan Marr spent the final hours of her life, taped to her high chair and, evidence suggests, her mouth covered with tape. Cause of death: asphyxiation.
It's not just the grisly nature of the case that's drawn attention since Logan died Jan. 31. The woman charged in the death, the child's foster mother, is a former caseworker for the state agency that monitors foster parents. ============================================
More examples of children dying after the state decided to 'err on the side of the child' for the sake of the children: [link|http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/3.html|SOME CASE HISTORIES]
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting
|
Post #1,501
7/11/01 3:44:42 PM
|
That's a highly pathological example
And additionally it's a failure of a system that *tries* to prevent the death of *any* child. For me, at least, TRYING is highly important.
What I can't stomach is the idea that we back off and accept that the collateral damage of some dead children is a suitable price to pay for the sake of "rights".
Because for those "rights", we're sacrificing the rights of those children.
And that can't be right... can it?
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,546
7/11/01 9:36:54 PM
|
Peter, there has to be a better way.
For every failure here to pull a child from an abusive situation and the child dies is complicated by 2 children dying by abuse by the state. This is a fact. If someone thought my children were in danger and I knew that they would be in a safe home, fed well and taken care of until court I wouldnt have a problem. Knowing by the news and my own personal experience If my kids were taken, I would rescue them and take them home to our village where the Indian Child welfare act kicks in and the Tribal Council gets custody, fearless does not have that option. He knows the kids would lose if taken away. Everytime, everywhere in this nation. That is a fact that the state is the worse parent imaginable. Just read Charlie Manson in his own words of his state upbringing, his story is average not exceptional and you would wish this on our own children? thanx, bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|