The English have secret courts that take newborn babies from their mothers’ breasts for forced adoption. This barbarity is without precedent in the civilized world and may presage Brit cultural collapse.
We picked up on this when a couple posted an interview in which Brit state employees told them that, although they thought there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, they planned on taking the woman’s newborn for forced adoption.
We’ve lived in or have family in over 10 cultures, including the US, Norway, France, Italy, Spain, and Mexico. In all of these this practice would be considered atrocious – people would not stand for it. But the Brits don’t seem to care – after a few headlines on the YouTube incident, the MSM dropped it.
This disturbed Mrs G and myself deeply, and we’ve been digging – here’s our first report on causes.
Like much nastiness, it started with Blair (my ellipsis):
Each year some 1,300 babies under a month old are placed in care before adoption, compared with 500 when the (Blair) Government came to power (9 years ago)…
In England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have different systems), responsibility for child safety and the care of orphans lies with so called “Local Authorities”. These are subdivisions of the Brit counties – the YouTube recording happened in the County of Yorkshire.
These Local Authorities are largely funded by central government, and have limited oversight from part-time elected councilors, who get paid a small sum plus expenses. Local Authorities have swarms of mostly unionized employees:
Local government employs 2.1 million people in England and 164,000 in Wales and is one of the largest employers in England and Wales
In 1998, Blair’s team was concerned about children “cared” for in Local Authority institutions – successors of the old workhouses. These kids are doomed:
Most young people in local authority care are destined to end up in prison, homeless or working as prostitutes, a report by a think tank claims.
If a Brit is propositioned or mugged, it’s likely to be by a graduate of a Local Authority care home. So all but the bravest adopters avoid kids already in care, preferring babies, who they think will be more pliable.
They’re quite wrong.
All experimental studies show parents have little influence on the development of their kids (page 372, my ellipsis):
The three laws of behavioral genetics (are):
The First Law: All human behavioral traits are heritable.
The Second Law: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.
The Third law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.
The “substantial portion of variation” seems to be accounted for by kids experience with their peers – at play, in school, in the streets, in parks, and in clubs.
These rules mean babies are not blank slates to be programmed by their families and Blair’s socialist state, but little people. The reason we parents get on with our kids is shared inheritance – they think and behave, if not like us, then like our familiar siblings or parents.
So if you adopt a kid, no matter how young, you’re taking a formed personality into your life that you have very little chance of understanding.
And the peer group effect explains why kids are damaged by Local Authority care – only the most gifted carers can guess what makes their charges tick. And some carers are perverts attracted to the helpless.
But socialists believe, in the face of the evidence, that humans are blank slates. So they decided to stem the massive social damage caused to and by kids in Local Authority care by setting targets for their adoption – incorrectly assuming that in a family environment the kids would be programmed “correctly”.
Then the Law of Unintended Consequences clicked in, aided by three factors;
1. Adopters want babies, who they wrongly think they can program, not older “problem” children who they rightly suspect will cause them problems.
2. Special English Family Courts deal with the custody of children. To “protect the privacy of the children”, they operate in absolute secret and outside the normal processes of law (Miranda Rules, etc).
3. Civil authorities in child care cases are not cops, but Social Services bureaucrats working without check or oversight.
These factors ensured the Blair adoption targets would be met, not by finding adoptive families for kids in Local Authority care homes, but by Social Services employees and Family Courts taking babies from parents who couldn’t defend themselves.
That’s why, every week, an extra 15 Brit newborns are taken from their mothers and consigned to families incompetent to raise them.
But that doesn’t explain why Brit judges, lawmakers, social workers, and adoption agencies are complicit in this barbarity.
Irish people would not. Americans would not. Italians would not. Spaniards would not. Mexicans would not. Primitive societies would not.
We detail this English (and Welsh) disease tomorrow, and subsequently suggest why those infected flourish in the green and pleasant land, and what this tells us about the probability Brit society will survive.