Tuesday, 26 January 2016

essays on Crime (5) Social services

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.


  1. Hey John, it's fml. I think we share of a lot of the same views, although I don't know if I would agree on calling the modern day system capitalistic. Maybe in sheer definition, but in spirit, no... Smith would've never wanted this, neither would've the Dutch when they first started their experiment with the idea of capitalism. Other than that one caviout, I do agree with your general premise. I write quite a bit as well, maybe we could share works sometime.

    What I think could improve your essay, and this is SOLELY my OPINION, is less rhetoric and more as they would say in hip-hop slang, real talk. I would love to give you a critique, but for me to do this on a cellphone would be extremely hard.

    In essence, your core is good, your views, while arguable, are relatable, and your use of outside sources is extremely nice. The criticisms... less rhetoric about economics as any economic system can truly work, it is ethics and civics that are missing from the masses and the elite, and less firebrand styled writing. A grayed tone, so to speak. Many social workers are just normal ass people in the machine as well friend, and it would do you well to remember that fact ;)

    Til next time.

    1. Hi,

      I appreciate the comments. People seldom leave comments so it is encouraging when somebody does. I agree what you say about Smith; but I am unsure whether you are relating to the essay on Social workers or perhaps another essay? I think capitalism or what we may call the free market went into its more extreme element in the 1980s under the tyrannies of Thatcher and Reagan, and it is only now that Britain is imposing harsh neo-Reaganite policies, which makes Thatcher look like a liberal. Nevertheless, state capitalism is a more accurate term I am sure, but under this perverse system, what can only be achieved is a state based on greed, avarice and children's rights are not a priority and in many cases are obsolete.

      I appreciate also your advice on improving the essay. You say what is needed is less rhetoric, well, I think in terms of 'real talk', I am quite open and candid about basic, preliminary truths. I am unsure however what you mean by 'real talk', may be you are speaking about the way I write and express my thoughts? From my perspective at least I think I was as forward and plain speaking as I possibly could be.

      On your final points I find most interesting and I shall try to address them. My 'firebrand' rhetoric, as you call it is a style of writing I have adopted. If I see a fish you must call it a fish and where that is concerned I think you should never compromise, this seems harsh but the modern world is far more harsher. In terms of economics though I have spoken, albeit briefly about a worthwhile economic system and it is something these days people do not take seriously, but it is something for people to consider. In terms of your comment on social workers being normal 'ass' people, I agree with that, however the Nazis were normal people but when an entire society is based on savagery and barbarity, soon enough the metamorphosis will begin...

      Regards, and thank you,


    2. Hey John. What I'm saying is you catch more of an audience if you are humane in your treatment to them. There is no enemy that is human per se. It is a thought process that is the enemy. I engage racists, and I have caused a few here and there to really rethink their views and explain to themselves how they could justify such actions by being rational, patient and caring. Hitler would've never became the man he did without losing those traits in his mom like he did when she died. My point is to bring the people closer together, therefor the few things we do agree upon, like abuses of the system, can be shifted due to the sheer volume of support. Although there may be somethings some would argue with you about, you can lead them to the conclusion you want if you set up your path of conversation correctly. Does that make sense at all...? I'm sorry if it doesn't hahaha.

      What I mean by more real talk is, hmmm, how do I say it... this is hard. Like, an emotional appeal mixed in with an appeal to ethos, concerning a situation that may have affected you personally. Give an outside example, give the logos, bring in an outside supporting argument, and then maybe use a personal experience with the outcomes of such policies you disagree with. 'Real talk', almost tangible experience if that makes sense?

      And regarding the Nazi's... not all of them participated in war crimes and there were allied soldiers whom most definitely did. Nuance my friend. People are rarely, if ever, the 'enemy'. When we dehumanize even the worst among us, we lose a piece of ourselves. :)

      Til later.

    3. Thanks for the response,

      I gave the Nazis as an example for self-evident reasons. In terms of what you are saying in bringing outside arguments, well, in many of my essays of which a number are on this blog, I have done that. I should state that is is not my intention to bring my writing to a wider audience or to win over people's irrational prejudices.

      I always attempt write as an individual who is immune from free market influences and the mass media and popular culture in general; I think you have to write from a view point not of 'our time', forget what the 'progressives', 'liberals' and others say, because in sooth there are very few of us that can be immune from that nonsense.

      I do, however, appreciate the feedback.

      Apologies for the late reply.

    4. Yah, I know, it just always simply delves into the Nazi's ya know?

      I know you've brought outside sources in, I congratulate your use of them in my first comment. ;) I was simply trying to explain the "real talk" comment in the structure of an essay. I do apologize if that wasn't clear enough.

      No one is immune to the market, culture or mass media, there are simply some that try and exercise their own thought processes more than others, of which group do I think you would be a part of? Most definitely the latter haha.

      I wasn't telling you to capitulate, what I was attempting to say was simply, you make no friends nor allies if you attack the humans themselves. I guess what I'm saying is to attack ideals, structures and inatitutions as much as possible and remember when you venture into the human territory that you should be cautious in how you approach it for fear of coming off like one who is saying 'I am better than'. I know from reading 3 of your essays and our conversation on youtube that you're not like that, but some may not be able to parse that out of what is said. Humans are emotional beings friend, as much as we would like to convince ourselves we are rational, the majority tend not to be.

    5. Also I'm not trying to harp on you. I agree with the majority of your sentiments and I think your essays are intelligently written, I feel as if I may not have come off that way. Anyways I hope all is well with you and yours.

    6. Sorry for three comments... but I'm writing something you may find thoroughly interesting. stevenbusman54@gmail.com is my email. Email me if you would like for me to send it to you.

    7. Hi Steven,

      there is never any need to apologise for leaving comments. You are intelligent, clearly, and you make important points. I am always genuinely excited by reading other people's work.

      I do not attack people unless there is a need to do so. So, far example I write quite a bit on religion and I never criticise the people who practice the faith, but the people who are apologists for it. I understand what you are saying though. Everybody is different of course and writing, like life I suppose, varies with age

    8. Hi Steven,

      there is never any need to apologise for leaving comments. You are intelligent, clearly, and you make important points. I am always genuinely excited by reading other people's work.

      I do not attack people unless there is a need to do so. So, far example I write quite a bit on religion and I never criticise the people who practice the faith, but the people who are apologists for it. I understand what you are saying though. Everybody is different of course and writing, like life I suppose, varies with age

    9. I'm just glad you understand what I'm saying and aren't, to be frank, an offended asshole about it. Yah everyone differs most definitely. I quite like daoism as a philosophy, even though I draw from Western, African and Amerindian ideas as well. If I had to pick my favorite 5 thinkers throughout history in any order... Micheal Bukunin, Diogenes, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha Guatama, and every metal band ever except for the glam/power/NAZI ones haha.

      I left you a sincere question on your armed forces essay.

  2. You answered it, disregard that statement at the end.

    1. Hi Steven,

      interesting figures you cited there. Bakunin and Lao Tzu are interesting figures, especially Lao Tzu who may be regarded as the first anarchist; Peter Marshall argues as much. There are too many figures to name for me but i draw my influence from a lot of literary writers also

    2. I think agrarian/artisan/scientific anarchist thought is the only style of thought that is humane... Although the city state wasnt a bad set up either. In history when we first see the formation of the empire through Sargon of Akkad we begin to see serious subjugation and the playing off of fears to create a state. It seems as if once the modern ideal of the state comes into the question that we see humanity lose its innately animalistic and emotional nature to a 'greater' cause. Although I enjoy reason, logic and forethought and employ these tools regularly, I try and never lose sight that I am a creature of the earth first :)

    3. Most anarchist thinkers I have read have a totalitarian aspect. We see it in proudhon, Bakunin, Bookchin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy...but for me, anarchism is the most perfect utopia, so it will take time to get there; perhaps 500 years but the barbarism of 100 years ago is not true of today. The greatest and most humane anarchists are not people we have heard of but the pauper on the street, the nurse, the housewife. It will be interesting to see how the OECD countries progress over the next 10 years.

    4. In what sense does Bakunin have a totalitarian slant. I'm almost all the way through God and State and I haven't heard anything of a totalitarian slant yet. He despised Marx because of the centralization aspect and his idea how a scientific government would work. When I ask where is his slant, I'm being sincere by the way. Kroptokin I could see to a degree, but at the same time, if he were in today's political world in the US or UK he'd be considered a libertarian socialist/communist.

      As to your last point, I agree 100%. It is the anarchist societies which have existed which exemplify these traits the best, not the individuals themselves.

      As an aside... Bookchin is a funny ass name.

    5. God and the State is a strange book. Bakunin was not a great writer and he darts back and forth without any real structure to his writings. Bakunin argued, just like Proudhon did, for a sort of morality police to commit acts of violence on people who were not submitting to his utopian dream or Kafkaesque nightmare, depending how you want to look at it. He also said people will be forced to work or else. In this respect, Proudhon was far worse.

      Bookchin is a peculiar name but I do like him. There are videos of him on youtube. He died in 2003 so there is a lot of him on there.

    6. It was a personal essay apparently printed posthumously. He does dart back and forth, but his argument does stand. I'm about 3/4 the way through and I haven't seen any avocation for violence so far, other than at dissolving the state, and very little even at that. I'll have to see more of his writing to truly know. I think his argument against the state stands even if he has deplorable views about enforcement. I'll be sure to check out Bookchin most definitely though.

    7. It was a personal essay apparently printed posthumously. He does dart back and forth, but his argument does stand. I'm about 3/4 the way through and I haven't seen any avocation for violence so far, other than at dissolving the state, and very little even at that. I'll have to see more of his writing to truly know. I think his argument against the state stands even if he has deplorable views about enforcement. I'll be sure to check out Bookchin most definitely though.

    8. Bakunin,like Proudhon, believed there should be an oppressive machine watching over people. A sort of police state within an anarchist society