# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs

LeftWing2

Campaign 4 Public Ownership

FASO

FASSIT

Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos

Unity-Injustice




Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner

Machetera

Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist

Agitprop

British Politics

Censorship 01

Collaborators

Gimlet

Imperialism

Memories

Mexico

New Britain 01

New Britain 02

Sleaze

Social Work Industry

Wankblogs

Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed





10 July 2008
How the social work filth justifies its crimes
Did you know that 21 per cent of all children held on the state's at risk register are there because of emotional abuse? As Camilla Cavendish points out in her Times piece, that is up from just 14 per cent in 1997. What, you may ask, is emotional abuse? Well, it is a "nebulous phrase" that "has no strict definition in British law," and which only a bovine social worker could believe has any utility. Basically, it is a catch-all, designed to allow the state's agents to judicially kidnap British children. Some councils use it, others don't - so whether it will be used against you really just depends on where you live. It is as brutal and cynical as that.

One can understand why the social work filth like this idea, as a person charged with this will find it difficult if not impossible to prove his innocence. Furthermore, the definition of emotional abuse differs from council to council. In Nottingham it involves "an ingrained pattern of interaction," whatever that means, but in Enfield it includes "swearing" and "discriminatory remarks". So God help you if you are in the Monday Club, say, and you tell a Paki joke.

To make matters even more lethal for just about any family that comes under the social work filth's baleful gaze, first impressions seem to count for a lot, at least according to Eileen Munro, reader in social policy at the London School of Economics. The consequences of this, according to Dr Munro, lead to:
. . . a devastating impact in child protection work, in that professionals (sic) hold on to their beliefs about a family despite new evidence that challenges them. It can be equally harmful whether they are over or underestimating the degree of the risk to the child. They may continue to believe parents are doing well, even though there are successive reports of the child's being distressed or injured. Innocent parents wrongly judged abusive can face the frightening experience of being unable to shake the professionals' (sic) conviction, however much counter-evidence they produce.
Let's consider this in more detail. If you are working class then you will recognise social work filth as the spiritual heirs of the old factory foremen. They are jumped-up working class and you will treat them as such. If you are from a genuinely middle class family, then you will recognise that fat lump of shit sat in your living room as the arriviste scum that it is. It is one thing for a barrister, say, to patronise people like that, but it is quite another when that same creature tries to behave as the barrister's overlord, or even his equal. Either way, whether the family is working class or middle class, trouble is on the horizon.

To make matters even worse, given the background and low educational levels of the average piece of social work filth, getting them to admit their error is going to be next to impossible. To understand why that is the case you have to imagine for a moment what it is like to be an ambitious little scrote - one of Nu-Labour's target voters, the aspirational maggots of this land. They get their A-Level results and, lo and behold, they realise that all the aspiring in the world isn't going to alter the fact that a scratty old poly is all that will have them. With a so-called degree from one of those institutions, social work is about the limit of what they can realistically hope for.

However, they are still aspiring little scrotes, so demanding respect, telling people over and over again just how professional they are is something that they have to do. They are reassuring themselves as much as anything else.

As part of that process they will attack working class people because they have to prove - again to themselves - that they no longer belong to that class. When faced with genuine middle class people their aim is to show that they are just as good, if not better, than the people that they are tormenting. Classical, lower-middle-class arriviste scum, in other words, and it would be a foolish man who expected them to behave in any other way.

In the short term there is really nothing that we can do to protect our families from these creatures. In the longer term, it strikes this writer as only right and proper that both the old working and middle classes put aside their differences and work together to put these creatures firmly in their place.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Dear Exile...

When The Exile and The Times co-ordinate efforts, my goodness the times are a changing.

Congratulations on your official status.

The Social work blogger who truly cares.

10 July 2008 at 11:35  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home