This looks at the perps in the uniquely English practice of forced adoption.
England has a secret legal process that seizes newborns from their mothers for adoption. The law gives the mothers none of the protections it grants murderers, and grievously harms mothers and kids since behavioral genetics says kids are best raised by kin.
Here we identify the perpetrators and their level of complicity, starting with a ruling by the Brit equivalent of the Supreme Court (my emphasis to highlight the passive case):
The mother has a long history of problems with alcohol, although she has also had periods of stability and sobriety. When not abusing alcohol she is able to look after her children properly and to establish good relationships with them. Unfortunately, because of her problems, they have all suffered periods of separation from her, including periods in care.
The older three were all the subject of care orders when Nina was born.
Because of the mother’s history and abuse of alcohol during the pregnancy, Nina was placed in foster care when she left hospital soon after the birth.
Note the only harm noted by the judges is the kids being separated from their mother, and she’s accused only of “problems with alcohol”, which is not an offense. It’s also subjective – remember the old saw that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor.
Of course these kids didn’t “suffer” care orders, the following people hurt them, in descending order of complicity
Social services employees.
Consultants who testified against the woman, maybe regarding her “alcohol abuse”.
The Judge and his support team in the secret Family Court
The pols who have passed the laws creating this system and the government workers that keep it ticking.
Next case (my ellipsis and emphasis):
Social services’ recommendation that the baby should be taken from…a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.
Hexham children’s services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.
Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services’ request for an emergency protection order – these are usually granted – will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.
Note, the mother’s crime is again subjective, and in this case junk science.
So add to the list of perps the maternity unit medical staff who take the baby when it’s born.
Then we must add the adoption agencies that advertise these purloined kids for profit.
And finally add those couples who fail to ensure that the kid they adopt has not been taken against its mother’s will.
So how many unique perps?
In 1995, about 800 babies were taken each year, and its seems plausible these were really at risk from their parents (psychopaths can be parents too). During Blair’s rule, an extra about 1,500 babies have been taken each year, and it’s reasonable to ascribe this to his incentivizing adoption.
The now-suppressed YouTube recording identified 4 social services perps. The court itself will have about 5 people who are complicit. Add three at the maternity unit and 1 expert witness, and we get a total of 13. Then add 2 adoption agency staff, 2 adopters who didn’t check the provenance of the baby, and management overhead of 50% to get a total of 25 per baby.
Over the 1500 babies that’s 37,500 perps. But many will be repeat offenders, so allow a factor of 4 overlap, yielding a perp core of 9,375. To which we can add a few hundred pols and central government workers who fly top-cover for this system.
So all this evil is likely the work of just 10,000 individuals!
Since that no other nation (possibly excepting Portugal) takes babies unless their is clear evidence of physical abuse by the parents, what enables these 10,000 English monsters to operate?
This occurs when people operate without check because they have good jobs for life. My guess is about 40% of people in this position become despots.
Despotism probably afflicts many Family Court judges.
Mrs G says that no-one who has born a child would take another woman’s kid, and thinks the primary perps must be men, supported by childless women.
Remember 3% of the population enjoy hurting people, and they’ll gravitate to jobs where they can do that without check
My guess is the bulk of the social service employees perps are psychopaths. They’re quite poorly paid, so don’t qualify for despotism, and many are women (three of the four in the YouTube tape were female, and the male was a classic psychopath).
We conclude the main characteristic of these 10,000 or so is psychopathy, tainted with a bit of male despotism. The Brit population contains about 1.8 million psychopaths, so there are plenty to fill the available slots.
But that doesn’t explain why the English are unique in allowing this – after all, every society has the same 3%.
And it’s not a small evil – Italians, French and folks in all the other nations we’ve lived in would explode with violence if anything remotely similar was attempted in their countries. Somehow their sane 97% keeps the evil 3% under control.
So we have to look for weaknesses in the English character, and that’s the subject of the next post.
For those depressed by reading this far, take heart!
In our final posts we’ll explain how abused English mothers can use asymmetric warfare to keep their kids.