Dubstepforum.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vices.html

Woman has panic attack. Gets sectioned, sedated and caesarianed. Kid is still with social services 15 months later despite a "full recovery" of the lady.

In Essex.

Well, shit.

I don't even know where to start.

Why did she get sectioned for a panic attack?
Despite the other glaring issues with this case.

magma wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vices.html

Woman has panic attack. Gets sectioned, sedated and caesarianed. Kid is still with social services 15 months later despite a "full recovery" of the lady.

In Essex.

Well, shit.

I don't even know where to start.

Ever since the media frenzy of high profile cases where social services failed to act, they go overboard on everything now as a precaution. They take kids away if the neighbours complain of parents shouting at them these days.

this is new levels of darkness. saw something about police taking children from anti fracking protestors too.

Electric_Head wrote:Why did she get sectioned for a panic attack?
Despite the other glaring issues with this case.

Panic attack is probably a bit unfair... the article says "breakdown", so it might've been a bit more explosive. But yeah... fucking brutal. Main question seems to be why they weren't handed over to Italian Social Services tbh.

At work I get to hear a lot about certain local authorities but this really is on a whole different level, I feel sorry for this mother and her baby

Even I can't play devil's advocate here.

magma wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Why did she get sectioned for a panic attack?
Despite the other glaring issues with this case.

Panic attack is probably a bit unfair... the article says "breakdown", so it might've been a bit more explosive. But yeah... fucking brutal. Main question seems to be why they weren't handed over to Italian Social Services tbh.

She should have been placed in a supported Mother & Baby Unit until she could be fully assessed and then Social Services could have made an informed decision as to what is best for both mother and child. Most likely a move into stand alone semi-independent accommodation with a high level of support with a view to gradually decreasing the level of support over time in a carefully managed and controlled way

[/professional opinion]

Genevieve wrote:Even I can't play devil's advocate here.

Kinda says it all really.

gwa wrote:saw something about police taking children from anti fracking protestors too.

seems fair enough

mindfuck this one.

dont even know where to begin.

magma wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vices.html

Woman has panic attack. Gets sectioned, sedated and caesarianed. Kid is still with social services 15 months later despite a "full recovery" of the lady.

In Essex.

Well, shit.

I don't even know where to start.

This is a very natural extension of the reset of your political philosophy.

nowaysj wrote:

magma wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vices.html

Woman has panic attack. Gets sectioned, sedated and caesarianed. Kid is still with social services 15 months later despite a "full recovery" of the lady.

In Essex.

Well, shit.

I don't even know where to start.

This is a very natural extension of the reset of your political philosophy.

What on earth are you banging on about this time, nowaysj? Or are you going to refuse to do anything more than post a provocative headline of disagreement yet again?

I believe in socialised public services, but I'm about as liberal as it gets when it comes to the individual. I certainly don't believe in any way shape or form that the state has a right to force caesarian sections on anyone, especially citizens of other countries. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly with the wild assumptions about socialists and prophecies of doom sometimes.

magma wrote:anything more than post a provocative headline of disagreement yet again?

magma wrote:I believe in socialised public services, but I'm about as liberal as it gets when it comes to the individual. I certainly don't believe in any way shape or form that the state has a right to force caesarian sections on anyone, especially citizens of other countries. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly with the wild assumptions about socialists and prophecies of doom sometimes.

The underlying theme of everything you post is that the state is better than the individual at organizing the individuals affairs. This is a continuation of that philosophy. This may exceed your expectations, but that is what happens when personal autonomy is incrementally destroyed by well meaning but short sighted white knights such as yourself.

Genevieve wrote:Even I can't play devil's advocate here.

Holy crap. I think I have to take this back. It's not necessarily that I agree with it now but.. yeah why do we draw the line when the child is in the womb? You're innitiating force against her by cutting the baby out of her, but if she had a 5 year old child that she was a potential danger to, you would have to restrain her too. Why draw the line with the womb, if her child would practically be safer outside of it and you believe that social services shoudl take custody of children who are endangered by their parents?

It's kind of like the abortion debate the way it's commonly framed.

nowaysj wrote:

magma wrote:anything more than post a provocative headline of disagreement yet again?

magma wrote:I believe in socialised public services, but I'm about as liberal as it gets when it comes to the individual. I certainly don't believe in any way shape or form that the state has a right to force caesarian sections on anyone, especially citizens of other countries. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly with the wild assumptions about socialists and prophecies of doom sometimes.

The underlying theme of everything you post is that the state is better than the individual at organizing the individuals affairs. This is a continuation of that philosophy. This may exceed your expectations, but that is what happens when personal autonomy is incrementally destroyed by well meaning but short sighted white knights such as yourself.

oh no he did not

nowaysj wrote:

magma wrote:anything more than post a provocative headline of disagreement yet again?

magma wrote:I believe in socialised public services, but I'm about as liberal as it gets when it comes to the individual. I certainly don't believe in any way shape or form that the state has a right to force caesarian sections on anyone, especially citizens of other countries. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly with the wild assumptions about socialists and prophecies of doom sometimes.

The underlying theme of everything you post is that the state is better than the individual at organizing the individuals affairs. This is a continuation of that philosophy. This may exceed your expectations, but that is what happens when personal autonomy is incrementally destroyed by well meaning but short sighted white knights such as yourself.

You haven't understood a word I've posted then. (which doesn't shock me; I doubt you've actually read many of them)

I believe the State is better than the market at reliably and fairly providing the central services necessary to run modern society - healthcare, the army, the police, the fire service, transport infrastructure, education, waste collection, prisons etc

I believe that capitalism is the best solution humanity has ever devised for providing just about everything else, and only argue that capitalism should be tempered with a few rules and taxes so that it works in society's interest rather than solely the entrepreneur's - obviously, the entrepreneur's interest is incredibly important as well. Profit is a wonderful thing. At various times I've been a small businessman myself. My girl's currently in the process of starting an import business. I work for a fucking INVESTMENT BANK. I *love* capitalism.

However, I believe there is nobody better in the world to decide what's better for the individual than the individual (preferrably after a decent education, but if not, they still get free choice). For instance, I believe all drugs should be legal and have argued so many times. I believe the individual should be allowed to live alone in the forest and never be disturbed by anyone if he wants. I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of political viewpoint and in opening borders to allow free emigration where practical.

Don't try and reduce me to a cartoon communist, you'll only make yourself look more ignorant.

Genuinely disappointed that's what someone might think of me after years of trying to post balanced viewpoints. You've pissed me RIGHT off.

magma wrote:

nowaysj wrote:

magma wrote:anything more than post a provocative headline of disagreement yet again?

magma wrote:I believe in socialised public services, but I'm about as liberal as it gets when it comes to the individual. I certainly don't believe in any way shape or form that the state has a right to force caesarian sections on anyone, especially citizens of other countries. You're as bad as Bill O'Reilly with the wild assumptions about socialists and prophecies of doom sometimes.

The underlying theme of everything you post is that the state is better than the individual at organizing the individuals affairs. This is a continuation of that philosophy. This may exceed your expectations, but that is what happens when personal autonomy is incrementally destroyed by well meaning but short sighted white knights such as yourself.

You haven't understood a word I've posted then. (which doesn't shock me; I doubt you've actually read many of them)

I've read them, and I've understood them, and apparently understood the implications better than you. But I'll take you up on your offer this time and skip your reply.

You're a fucking moron nowaysj, but I'm done putting effort into writing text that nobody will read for the day.

This place is fucking soul destroying. I have no idea why I bother.

Yeah, nowaysj didn't say "you believe in central planning in all these affairs, therefore you believe that the state should rip babies out of a woman's womb'. It's more, 'you support a certain type of system, but there's nothing either morally or logically stopping that system FROM ripping a baby out of a woman's womb" and it's touching on what I've been saying with my last post. Where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there?