Children are the group of people considered most vulnerable than any other and for good reason. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable that a sort of organisation is set up to protect these children from abuse, amongst other things. We have this of course. The major problem is they do not protect children; often, the opposite is the case. This is how they usually operate: if it is known a child is being physically or sexually abused, they often do nothing and sleep comfortably in bed at night knowing a child is having their head rammed against a wall or perhaps being sodomised every day of the week. The Social Services, or certainly some people who work for them, know these children cry out in pain at night time but have a joyous sleep despite this fact.
At the other end of the spectrum, these same people act like total crazed schizophrenics and remove children from their parents for no reason at all. Often they fabricate stories for this to happen, and then the children are put in care homes, which is the place children go where they can be abused. The social services must be rubbing their hands in glee at this prospect. Parents are, not parents at all, because they are powerless. At any time, they can have their children removed. On this face of it this has a fierce system of terror; worthy of any fascist state.
Nevertheless, why would such people do this is an obvious question to ask. There are various reasons why. The first has everything to do with ambition and “targets”, this enables them to gain promotion, they, quite plainly, are psychopaths. The second reason is for control and power; nothing more. A third is because they have a narrow delusional spectrum of the world, and lunatics of a sort, and so carry on these delusional behaviours. This is the behaviour of the megalomaniac. However, the fact of the matter is that they just do not really care
A particular concern about these agencies, as they like to call themselves, are given more power than any other group. The police, for example, do not have this level of power. This may surprise some, but it is the plain truth. If the police arrest somebody, they need a jury to convict them and judge to imprison them. A social worker needs no judge or jury; they are able to make all sorts of terrifying decisions and no judge is required. It is a simple case, to quote George.H.Bush, “what we say goes”. The parents, of course, must be docile or they face the possibility of losing their children and never seeing them again. This is what some would call living a life of absolute terror.
Everybody has a right to family life, so we are told. This is a falsehood because clearly not everybody has a right to family life. Because, when a woman has a child, the social services have the power to remove that child, and this same woman may never see that child again. This is because she does not reach the “criteria” the social services set. In other words, “what we say goes”. If the victim involved does not like it, well that is really too bad because there is simply nothing to be done. The nightmare society has been fully recognised and there is no escaping that fact.
Stories often make the capitalist press concerning “mistakes” and “errors’ made by the Social Services. There have been cases where children have been battered to death, raped by unceremonious individuals, but it remains a mistake and that is all. The person responsible for such a “cataclysmic error” is reprimanded, and things carry on after that, as usual. There is never any criticism of the structure of the organisation itself, just like there is not any of any other. The tyrannical role the social services play, there are rhetorical questions, which we must all consider. These questions, in contemporary society, are children free? Do they possess even a fragment of freedom? In addition, what of opportunity? Do they have freedom of opportunity? These and other questions remain unanswered. They remain so; therefore, the attempt to answer them shall be made here.
The first of these questions shall be the exploration of freedom itself. Are children really free? In a word, no. Then people will say children cannot be totally free because of varying factors. It would be appropriate to look at these factors, but not presently. Freedom ought not to be a privilege but a right bestowed on all us. Parts of these freedoms are taken away from children for evident reasons, and people broadly support this. Nevertheless, nevermind that. Therefore, the parent’s child is left with the responsibility to minimise their freedom in order to “protect” their child. For example, they would prohibit their child from moseying the streets during the early hours of the morning; not to behave and act as they please, for without discipline the child runs amok around the place and few would argue against this.
Nevertheless, when the Social Services become involved that is another matter entirely. For they assume the role of the parents and do as they please. They able to dictate whether the child is able to see this person or that person; because of the DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) culture, their freedoms are left seriously impaired once again. These checks then are made to fill the pockets of private power, and besides this, it displays a society to children, too young to know better, are filled with an overwhelming mistrust of adults. They have not the freedom to work alongside that may be an awe-inspiring influence to these children. However, what the social services do is make children more susceptible to abuse and dissipate any freedoms they may have left.
They have no freedom of opportunity either. If the child’s parents, for whatever reason, have attracted the attention of the social services, this child suffers because of the actions they impose. It is as simple as this: if your mother and father do not do exactly as we say you will never see them again, be forced into children’s homes and be abused for a long sustained period. This is perhaps an exaggeration of sorts but the point has been sufficiently made.
Now for the varying factors. Children, all sorts of people proclaim do not have the capabilities in making decisions such as consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, voting, getting married, driving a car, gambling and so on. Well, these laws are just foolish. Every child has different levels of maturity at varying stages of their adolescence. Some children are mature enough to consent to sex at thirteen, likewise the same in the case of driving, drinking alcohol and so forth. The restraints we force upon children, and it is not children who are the “brute engine” of the law, to borrow a phrase from William Godwin, but the parents that face criminal prosecution and other individuals.
The social services are very eager to criminalise such people and act like rancid fundamentalists in carrying out these practices. It is all part of a culture of fear and could only happen in a crypto totalitarian state. Just like in Kafka’s the problem of our laws, he, Kafka, writes: “Our laws are generally not known; they are kept secret by the group of nobles who rule us. We are convinced that these ancient laws are scrupulously administered; nevertheless it is an extremely painful thing to be ruled by laws that one does not know”. Yet it is right, a story written in the 1920s tells us everything we need to know about modern society. It is the Social Services, which hide these laws. They act as if they were a government themselves, as oppressive, autocratic, and criminal. They set their policies, and are largely unknown because they are simply told to nobody. The picture, which Kafka paints, is prevalent amongst Social Workers.
When children are removed from their parents and taken to some wretched place where they are sadistically abused, the Social Services make up adventure stories on why this happened. Of course, they are believed and soon afterwards, they do the same thing all over again to sabotage yet another family. They write their reports of course, pretending they abide by a strict code of conduct. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is they are set hideous targets and they meet these targets with utter barbarity and inhumanity. However, of course all this is very furtive and other agencies, in turn dare assert such things are untrue. Are they willing to sue writers and journalists who document such things?
That is hardly the way such organisations work. If they did, they would be working outside of the official propaganda network. No, this is not how the propaganda framework operates. What usually happens is the following scenario: they write directly to the person making these criticisms and make the lamentable attempt to convince such people otherwise. When they come to the conclusion when they are unable to sue for damages, surprisingly, they then have the capacity to think independently, and for themselves. The next choice of action is to - if the critic of the organisation is popular - they will spin their story to the capitalist press. They will speak of the “bad apple”, and get other organisations to agree with their sordid lies, smearing the individual, isolating them and seeking to destroy their credibility.
They lament the actions of this befuddled lunatic, as they call them, and claim they are putting children, all children at risk. The consequences would be inevitable. It would be an example of say, in political terms, Salvador Allende, the former President of Chile. The fascistic “democratic” states that claim to be moral and just bully and intimidated this President and the country. How does a person, they would say in private, deviate from our free market hegemony? In this case, incidentally, the country was subject to fascism, torture, mass rape and murder. Opposing the American post war economic imperial structure is a brave thing to do but terrifying for the victims involved.
If you intervene in the midst of a gang war infiltrated by gangsters, do not be too surprised if you are shot in the head. Nevertheless, for example, if a thousand people do it or a hundred-thousand perhaps then that is a different matter entirely. The same is true of organisations like the Social Services. When a large number of people-which does not happen by the way-object to the very structure of the organisation itself-that is when some good may come of it. Nevertheless, presently that cannot happen, because under capitalist demagoguery, such freedoms about “transparency” are not bestowed on the population in general. Social workers, therefore, will continue to terrify and haunt children with their perverse ideology, it makes no difference that Social Services have little idea what this actually means. Then again, such people are not known for reading Zola, Turgenev and Schiller.
“We are not safe Clarence, we are not safe”, so says the Duke of Gloucester in Shakespeare’s Richard III. It is the safety of the child we need to be concerned about. People pretend of course because that is what is expected of them. This “pretence”, one must admit, is alarming to grandiose degrees. In the church, the Roman Catholic, as well as others, it has always been fashionable to abuse children, with, at times, state support, as we saw in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland. This practice carried on all the way up until the 1990s. Nothing could be viler than this “pretence”. It happens all the same because when there is no impediment to stopping your own crimes it will forever continue.
Nevertheless, this is removed from history as far as people are concerned about this frivolous piece of information. It should be here noted with total sincerity that the Social Services as an organisation are worse than any child-abuser and even child-killer; in fact, it would be correct to say they are worse than every child-killer combined. There is a significant chasm between these two groups of people: with the Social Services everything is pre-planned, they are of sound mind and fully aware of what they are doing to the child and their family. The child killer/abuser, on the other hand, does not. Many have dilapidated minds, and the ones that are fit and well, it is safe to say nobody of a sound mind abuses a child unless there is at least some psychopathy in the individual involved. Consequently, these sorts of people often are punished for their crimes.
There are many instances, of course, where parents who pretend to look after their children, are subjecting them to a misery and a direful existence. This is perfectly acceptable as far as the Social services are involved. Neither do such people even attempt to make people's lives better by removing these children from these dreadful people. There is only one possible reason for doing this. It, of course, has nothing to do with nonchalance, for if it did, they would hardly go out of their way to make sure the child suffers, which is exactly what they do. It is not nonchalance but psychopathy, and this is prevalent throughout the Social Services.
There have been cases, and lots of them where children have been abused in numbers, and it is well known the Social Services have been complicit in this abuse. In fact if you read the testimonies of adults who were abused as children, they tell dreadful stories not just of cover-ups and complicity of the abuse, but they have even carried out this sadistic abuse themselves. However, of course, it never happened; none of this happened, and so it remains.
3rd-9th May, 2013
For my other 'essays on crime', check my previous posts. My next essay on crime will be posted soon.