Social Services confiscate EDL supporter’s children for thoughcrime

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

A court has ruled that social services can remove three children from their mother and her unborn child when it is born because they find her views unacceptable.

1984 thinkpol posterThe woman is a former supporter of the English Defence League and is now believed to be a member of a splinter group called North West Infidels.  She has convictions for violence and is banned from owning dogs after setting a pitbull on a former partner.  Interestingly, though, it isn’t this past history of violence (none of which have involved children) that led social services to take her children off her but her views on Islam and immigration.

According to the Express, social services are concerned that her children will become “radicalised with EDL views” and a judge has agreed, on that basis, to permanently remove her three children from her care and to have her unborn child taken away and put up for adoption as soon as it is born.

The social worker report says:

Toni clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off group in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.

Toni has been a prominent member of the EDL. They claim they are a peaceful group, however, they have strong associations with violence and racism.

This makes me particularly angry.  While there are undoubtedly racists in the EDL, the organisation itself is not racist.  This woman may be racist but that is not a good enough reason to take her children off her.  The association of violence with the EDL is the product of a compliant media and vested political interests (many senior politicians on the left and the right are members of UAF which is a front for the SWP) that refuse to truthfully report the cause of most violence at EDL marches: the left wing extremists of Unite Against Fascism and the Socialist Workers Party.  It’s bad enough that this dishonesty results in the far left getting away with some quite vicious attacks on EDL protesters but it’s something else when it means a woman loses her children.

Who this woman chooses to associate with (as long as they’re not people who would put children in danger) and whatever her views on immigration and Islam are is not a good enough reason to take her children off her.  Freedom of association and freedom of expression are human rights.  Taking this woman’s children off her for associating with the “wrong” people and having the “wrong” views is a breach of her human rights.

The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.
– 1984, George Orwell


  1. Stan (222 comments) says:

    Did you read the whole article?

    The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner…. Last month, a judge ruled that her three other children, who have different fathers, should be permanently removed from her care…. Documents seen by the Sunday Express reveal social workers are worried about Mrs McLeod’s previous alcohol and drug misuse, her “aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues”.

    You might also want to read this
    It’s an account of her previous offenses, (committed under a previous name)

    I think the words “According to the Express” sum it up perfectly

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Yes, I read the whole thing. The article says that they took the children off her not because of her violent past but because they don’t want the children radicalised by her EDL views.

  3. Stan (222 comments) says:

    I think you’ll find that she claimed that it was due to her EDL views, not the social workers.
    Social services are not allowed to comment publicly on reasons for a child being taken into care, though they are obliged to tell the parents. The only place that the Express could get this information is from Toni McLeod herself, who I suspect is not a neutral or indeed reliable source.

  4. QM (19 comments) says:

    She’s not a member of the EDL but North West Infidels a splinter group who were forced out of the EDL due to their racist and violent views. They don’t speak for, represent or have anything to do with the EDL.

  5. Sherah (2 comments) says:

    So what she has past criminal charges. Lots of people do! She has never harmed her children as far as we know. the closed family courts have a lot to answer too because these things are happening far to often.

  6. axel (1214 comments) says:

    sherah: ‘as far as we know’ we have’nt seen the saocial work reports on the kids themselves but they must be pretty bad if the kids are being put into long term care

  7. Sherah (2 comments) says:

    Axel ….TV host Matthew Wright confirmed it. Social services are basing this almost entirely on the fact that she is affiliated with EDL? That’s the report! And telling the Father that he is not allowed to care for it because he is a full time soldier serving in Afgan is beyond!!!!!

  8. Stan (222 comments) says:

    You can watch the program here

    Although they mentioned that social services were concerned with the womans politics they were careful not to say that it was the reason that the child was being taken away, even though that was what was inferred. The whole thing was based on the newspaper article.
    They also stated that there were large chunks of information that they did not know the details of and that they could not discuss matters concerning her other children for legal reasons. It just looked like tabloid TV to me

    Don’t get me wrong, if this is to do with taking a kid away from it’s parents for political reasons then the council and the social services are a bunch of dangerous pricks. I just think that there’s a whole lot of information that isn’t in the public domain

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.