Social work industry objects again to people's politics

Just when you thought that the social work industry couldn't get any more retarded in their desire to attack political thought, up they come with another example of their jaw-dropping stupidity.

Two years ago they tried to stop a couple in Rotherham from fostering children because of their membership of UKIP; now they have tried to forcibly adopt a child in Darlington because his father is a member of the English Defence League.

The mother of the 13 month old baby in Darlington does not live with the father and supports his wish to have custody of their child. However, the parasites of social work then got involved on the ludicrous grounds that the EDL is "immoral." They added to this the fact that the father a decade ago when he was 17 was foolish enough to have sex with a 13 year old girl. He wasn't prosecuted for that, probably because even Mr Plod isn't daft enough to try and drag a teenager to court for doing what all teenagers do these days. Nevertheless, for Darlington social work industry that was evidence that he was also "immoral," and grounds enough to seize his child.

The case ended up in the High Court before Judge Sir James Munby who ruled: "The city fathers of Darlington and Darlington's director of social services are not guardians of morality." He went on to say: The justification for state intervention is harm to children, not parental immorality."

I have asked this question many times before, but it is always worth repeating: what do we think that we are doing even listening to the knuckle-dragging, educationally subnormal members of the social work industry, still less providing them with cushy numbers on the local government gravy train?

By the way, as a rule when I post about the latest act of madness by these fuckwits, an army of them crawl over here from whichever sewer they inhabit to take over my comment box. Please don't this time, as I am really not in the mood for being nice to any representatives of British headbangery.

Yet another social worker writes - or does he?

Last week this blog was pretty much inundated with social work types, all screaming abuse at your truly for refusing to take seriously their pathetic demands that I stop treating them as parasitic, lower middle class scum. Sorry boys and girls, but that is never going to happen.

Needless to say, being complete and utter fucktards who have nothing better to do with their working lives than spend long hours reading this blog, many of them left comments on very old postings. I am not sure why they did that, but whenever anyone is dealing with a social worker it is always best to keep in mind just how utterly useless they are at everything they do, so leaving one idiotic rant on one post and then making a follow up comment on another is pretty much par for the course from a social worker.

That said, this comment which I reproduce in full below is somewhat different. It's as stupid as anything else that any of these parasites have ever written, but I have my doubts about is veracity. I will explain why in a moment, but for now the comment appeared on a very popular post from 2013 which explained that Femen is not actually a genuine feminist movement, instead it is a stooge organisation that was set up by a man who wanted his very own harem.

Hello Mr Bell. Thank you for posting my comment and thank you for your reply. Ignoring the predictably Americanised nature of your chosen terms of abuse, let me explain to you why I object to some of your postings. You seem to think it is acceptable to comment on women's physical appearance in terms of their attractiveness to you, which is classic male arrogance and sexism. Reducing a feminist political protest to an opportunity to leer lecherously at a photograph of topless women is itself crass. Having the sheer temerity to add comments about the slight variation (from an idealised, male-dictated 'norm') in the body shape of one of the protesters is rude, adolescent and unnecessary. It attempts to reassert the thousands of years of male control of women's bodies which feminism has been challenging for decades. The general tone of your postings on women is a curious combination of 'Carry On' style adolescent leering and misogynistic hatred, neither of which are appropriate in this day and age. Finally, a word about the terms you choose as insults which are, in my view, deeply revealing of the precise natuire (sic) of your mysogny (sic). The term 'pussy-whipped' conflates together the vagina and violence. Does this perhaps indicate a deep-seated fear of women in general and their vaginas in particular on your part? The suiggestion (sic) that I am 'dickless' is equal;ly (sic) interesting as dicklessnes (sic) in itself is usually an indication of femaleness. The fact that you actually believe a state of dicklessness is inferior to a state of dickedness indicates that it is noeither (sic) certain women nor certain attiutudes (sic) that offfend (sic) you but women themselves. You are clearly afraid of women and this fear translates into hatred. This is classic mysogny (sic). It may not be your fault that you are a mysogynist (sic) (as a social worker I understand that people are largely the products of their environment) but it is unbecoming to flaunt this ugly trait in public.

Yeah, I know, on the surface it is inane isn't it? Not only that, but it looks as if the dickhead who wrote it didn't even read my post properly. Remember that it was about the fact that Femen is a stooge outfit, so only an idiot could then go on to claim that the group's antics are part of serious politics. Now you might say that feminism as a whole is nothing more than a bourgeois pose that is adopted by ugly women who hate men more than they hate other women, but that is not the point, is it?  

Then we have the spelling mistakes,especially the fact that the writer cannot even spell "misogyny" correctly. Again, we take that as being normal from a social worker because we just assume that as a breed they  are semi-educated buffoons with a desire for status who use big words to make themselves feel important.

Yet, there is something wrong with this comment which leads me to believe that it is not genuine social work wank, but instead a rather engaging bit of trolling. In other words, this writer is not as stupid as he tries to pretend, being someone who sat down, presumably with a cigarette in his mouth and cup of tea steaming at his elbow, to give us some stereotypical social work spurt to amuse himself.

Why do I think that? Mainly because it is too perfect an example of how these clowns write. It is as if someone went over to a social work site and grabbed a few ideas from the genuine dickheads. Then he sat down and covered everything in one paragraph. It's a Daily Mail idea of social work, in other words, and very funny for all that.

Now, we had better just hope that this theory is correct. If it isn't, and if this is a genuine social worker, then the need to organise ourselves to pressure the political parties to stop providing employment for these sub-normals is rather more pressing that I ever imagined.

A social worker writes...

There are many things that are amusing about the social work industry, but the one aspect of them which has me chuckling with great glee is their puerile desire for respect that comes coupled with a pathetic demand for status. That status is never going to be awarded to them, something which I suspect they know, deep down in their reptilian minds, but it doesn't stop them pleading. 

A few days ago the Guardian attempted to present these parasites in a good light, and needless to say my quite reasonable comment led a gang of social work types  leaving whatever foetid hole they normally inhabit and start screaming an entertaining torrent of abuse at me.

Yesterday one Gavin Tucker, a social worker in his mid-thirties who works in Havering, decided to leave a comment on this blog which I reproduce here, since it basically proves pretty much everything that I have ever said about these pathetic individuals:

Dear Ken, thought  I would drop you a line as this vehicle for your ego contains so few comments. I am one of the 'filth' who dares to care. I have also read your poorly informed attacks on the Social Work profession. I think you should spend a bit of time with Social Workers and actually find out what they do. You might be surprised, as Social Workers help and protect people everyday. The reality of Social Work is different to the stereotypes you peddle. All your attacks serve to do is align you with those who harm others. You portray the Social Work profession as some kind of secret police, when in fact we are an unfairly maligned profession that is, if anything, disliked by the establishment. I might add also that Social Work contains many talented and bright people, many of whom have previously been supported by Social Work themselves. I might add, just to establish my credentials, that I have two masters degrees and have attended three Russel  Group universities (incl Edinburgh University!). I would be interested to know your credentials. Gavin Tucker 

Just look at this ejaculatory spurt for a moment. When you have finished laughing, consider how outraged Tucker must have been to take the trouble to write this drivel in the first place. Then consider that if I had criticised a genuine profession in the same way that I go after the social work industry the reaction would have been one of bemusement. The true professions are recognised as such by the broader society, thus their members do not have to stake hysterical claims like this because their membership of an elite body is taken as read.

In just two hundred words or so, Tucker felt the need to use the word "profession" three times. That is not making a  case, rather it is the abject pleading of a man who knows, deep down inside, that he is nothing more than the representative of a body that is about as much use as the rats which dwell in a city's sewers. 

You will note that he invites me to engage in a pissing contest with him by posting my academic curriculum vitae on-line. What the fool fails to understand is that this is a political debate about how we allocate resources in our country. My view is that providing employment for the bovine is a good thing, just so long as those mouth breathers leave the rest of us alone. Thus Tucker can social work his mates, write reports that are never implemented and advocate actions that are never taken, but what he should not be able to do is dictate to the rest of us how we live our lives and run our families.

He makes the point that social workers are not secret policemen, and I agree entirely with that view. I had a close encounter of the very unwanted kind with Rhodesian security men in 1977 and many of them had served on the front lines in the brutal war that was then being waged in that country. There is nothing brave about social workers, which is why they take an army of thuggish policemen along when they make their dawn raids on people's houses.

Viewing Tucker's wank overall, I sense a fear  underlying his words; a fear that we may one day wake up to just how much money we squander every year providing cushy numbers for types like him. Our country has many faults, but it is still a mature democracy and the system is flexible enough to accommodate varying demands that are placed upon it. If the people of Scotland can force a referendum on the country's future, and if the people of Britain can push the Tories into promising a referendum on our membership of the EU, it is perfectly possible to push for the destruction of the social work vampires.

As I have said many times before, it only takes political will and British society can be rid of these parasites once and for all. Change the laws and we can then live our lives in peace, and ex-social workers can get used to their new status as employees of McDonald's.

Update: The little retard left another comment as a follow-up to the first. Alas, he left it on an unrelated post, which means that anyone stumbling on it by accident will wonder what the hell he was babbling about. I guess this is all pretty much par for the course from one of these head the balls.

Albina Kumirova: an artist of our time

The Madonna Of Our Time, by Albina Kumirova is a stunning work in more ways than one. In its full original glory, it must dominate a room, not just because of its nine feet by five feet dimensions, but by the sheer power of its imagery. The artist has imagined the Madonna and Child, threatened as they would be in today's world by the bovine thuggishness of social workers and their hellhounds in blue.

The symmetry of the piece is almost perfect. The two creatures who face the viewer on either side of the painting are at once truly wicked, and at the same time completely indifferent to what is happening behind them. The policeman who stands with his arms folded, and the two on the right who are chatting to each other are likewise not responsible in their minds for the atrocity that is occurring in front of them. After all, they are merely officers of the law, there to ensure that a terrible injustice can pass off unhindered.

We can see the face of the Madonna quite clearly, as She and the Christ are the only figures in light. Within that light are what appear to be doves, or even angels, that are desperately trying to protect the Madonna and Child, but we can see from Her face that the darkness is about to envelop both of them.

Thus the road to Calvary goes through a social work office and police station.

Kumirova is an artist who makes the point in her works that evil is often not hot-blooded sadism. The worst evil is that which is carried out by people who are only doing their jobs. Such routine, banal evil is carried out by people in this work, called Professionals, which sums up such routine wickedness perfectly:

The faceless monsters who hold the blindfolded and naked  child, are not seeking to torture her. They might tell themselves that it is all for her own good, and the more honest among them will know that it is also about feathering their own beastly suburban nests, but none of that is uppermost in their minds. To them it is merely routine, the following of orders, because beyond order lies chaos, and they believe in the orders that they carry out. The fact that the child is being crucified by them is not their responsibility. They are merely professionals, doing their jobs.

Art in the service of a political cause is something that the Soviet Union excelled at. In Albina Kumirova, Britain has an artist schooled in that tradition who is weaving her magic in a noble cause, that of innocents caught up in the lunacy that is the British secret court system and its functionaries in the social work industry.

These works by Albina Kumirova can be seen on the 25 July, from 9.00am to 5.00pm at the Children Screaming To Be Heard conference, at 356 Holloway Road, London, N7-6PA. Speakers will include John Hemming MP, and the great Ian Josephs, a man who has helped to save many children from the social work industry.

The social work industry is out of control

The social work industry appears to be out of control. First they preyed on the very young, with the press full of stories of them circling like hyenas around new born babes, seeking to grab them from their parents on spurious and trumped up charges. Now they are going after the elderly...

A 94 year old retired midwife has been banned from speaking to the press for the rest of her life because these creatures do not like what she was telling them. She had moved a married couple into her house, but Redbridge social work industry wanted to put her into a workhouse so that they could grab her valuable house, presumably to help balance their books, and then forget about her. The old woman fought back so the social workers essentially raided her property 12 times in nine months, always accompanied by police, presumably to protect them from the wrath of an angry old woman who just wanted to be left alone.

In court she raised herself out of the wheelchair and defiantly told the judge: "They think I am a stupid old woman and can do what they like and I want them out of my life." That does not sound like a mental defective to me.

Needless to say, the judge declared her unfit and she has been gagged for life. Presumably her house will now be seized once the council has got her into the home. Given all that the social workers have done to this woman, I think she will be lucky to survive until the end of the year - or maybe death will be a blessing for her.

Over in Swindon, 88 year old army veteran Allan Thipthorpe enjoyed nothing more than bringing a whore into his sheltered accommodation, only to have social workers object. They said that the trollop was stealing from him, only to have Allan tell them that she wasn't, and it was his money, anyway, and if he wanted to spend it by paying someone to polish his knob that was his affair.

Needless to say, Alan appears to have lost that battle as well, although he did punch a council pen pusher, which is not bad going for an old fart.

When my late father was almost Alan's age, 20 years ago, the Oldham social work cockroaches tried to force him into a workhouse and I took up the cudgels on his behalf. Using every councillor that I could think of as well as the local press I managed to get them to back off, and thoroughly enjoyed myself in the process. Sadly, for the last six months of his life, dad was in one of those homes where the elderly are sent to die, but the council had to agree to foot the bill, and dad for his part agreed to go in until I could return to the UK and get him out. Sadly, he died a few days after I flew into the UK to keep my side of the deal.

Would I get away with that today? Probably not, as all that happened before New Labour were elected in 1997. They gave the social work industry more powers, and as we have seen with the old midwife and soldier, if you give the state powers, then it will abuse those powers.

It's easy to blame overpaid, undereducated social work rabble with their pathetic polytechnic degrees and puerile desire for status, but they would not last five minutes if parliament was to vote to strip away their powers. Then they could go away and flip burgers and the rest of us could live our lives in peace.

We need to change the laws in this country of ours.

Why does social work filth chase people abroad to bring them home?

Christopher Booker over at the Telegraph wonders why the social work industry do not leave people alone when they have fled abroad to escape their clutches. I think I have the answer...

If you were a lump of social work shit then you would know that all the aspiration in the world wasn't going to alter the fact that you are as thick as two short planks, which is why only a former poly would take you with your crap A-levels. Having got your "degree" social work is about all your can realistically aspire to do, since nobody else will give a third-rater such as you even an interview.

Such a creature may have enough sense awareness to know that human society survived for several millennia before the social work industry was even thought of, and will survive for many more after its members have been reduced to doing something more in keeping with their intellectual abilities, such as flipping burgers. Obviously, what our representative lump of social work shit wants to do is to put off that day of reckoning for as long as possible that that his place in the first class section of the local government gravy train is assured for his lifetime.

This why pregnant women who flee abroad have to be pursued. If the word gets out that these women are more than capable of fending for themselves and their babies in foreign lands then why were they not left alone to do the same in Britain? If they were capable what then is the point of having a large social work industry that leeches off the public purse? Would it not be far better just to close it down and leave people alone to lead their lives?

The social work industry doesn't want us to ask those questions, so it tries to ensure that we are cowed by demonstrations of the industry's power. That is why when a pregnant woman flees abroad she is persecuted unmercifully: so that everyone else will see her anguish and be terrified into submission by it.

Alas for them, it doesn't work, and more and more people are asking why we are subsidising these creatures in their lifelong cushy number at our expense?

The social work industry harasses thousands of mothers

The English branch of the social work industry  placed 4,000 children on its at risk register last year when they were still in their mothers' wombs! Even by the standards of that most loathsome of state security agencies, this marks a pretty new low in the harassment of women when they are at their most vulnerable. 

I have had few personal dealings with these creatures, but for quite some time I did help to fight the good fight by using what little talent I have as a wordsmith to help agitate against their activities. I think that the time has come to start reprinting some of my older works here as they seem even more valid today than they were a decade ago when I first wrote them.

For the record, if you are going to expand higher education down to almost primary school level, then the only way in which the bovine "graduates" of those "universities" are going to find employment is in local government. Capitalism is not as stupid as we on the left sometimes fondly imagine it to be, and any City institution will prefer the Oxford or St. Andrew's man over the wretched poly wallah, so social work is pretty much the only option open to these chancers.

They are the people who when I was a youngster were the foremen and chargehands in factories, and who used to strut around self importantly in overalls that were differently coloured that the rest of the shop floor. Today they manage to get into some wretched old polytechnic that has been allowed to degrade the name of university, and on that basis slither their way into a local government sinecure such as social work. As my mother used to say, they are the types who have got a class above themselves and need to be brought down a peg or two.

I have always regarded the middle class in general as scum who haven't got the balls to be workers nor the brass to be gaffers, but the lower middle class, many of whom come from my type of background are little better than graveyard rats to be taunted at every opportunity.

Time to start having the fuckers again!