Friday, January 3, 2014

The State Removes Baby From Mothers Womb - Scandal Of Britain's Secret Courts

When the state and its agents wield unaccountable power over the lives of its citizens it is a sure sign that the post democratic age is arriving. When that power is wielded in secret, with imprisonment for anyone who challenges it, then it's sure sign that the post democratic age has already arrived.

With the shocking details of the state ordering the forced removal of a baby from its mothers womb and its subsequent confiscation for adoption, one would be forgiven for assuming we are talking about National Socialist Germany or Soviet Russia not twenty first century Great Britain.

The treatment that Alessandra Pacchieri and her unborn baby received at the hands of the British state, in conjunction with the local government bureaucrats of Essex Council and the NHS, should give cause for concern to every decent freedom lover the world over.

To recap briefly, Ms Pacchieri is an Italian citizen who was attending a cabin crew training a course at Stansted Airport in Essex, near London. She suffers from a bipolar condition which was kept under control by medication: she was also four months pregnant. Ms Pacchieri stopped taking her medication for fear it would harm her baby and suffered a panic attack as a result. She then went on to make one of the biggest mistakes of her life by calling the police.

She gave them the phone number of her mother in Italy who explained her daughter's bipolar condition and that appeared to have been enough to set the state apparatus in motion.

Ms Pacchieri was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and held against her will in a psychiatric ward. She begged to be sent back to her family in Italy or at least be allowed to argue her case in court. This was refused and she was informed by the faceless bureaucrats from Essex Council that her yet unborn baby was going to be taken from her.

Under the current law a baby cannot be taken by the state until it is born therefore bureaucrats from the local NHS trust obtained a court order permitting birth to be enforced.  Ms Pacchieri was taken against her will into the operating theatre, given a general anaesthetic and her baby was removed from her womb.

On a couple of occasions she was allowed to see her baby prior to its permanent confiscation by the state.

Bearing in mind she was only four months pregnant at the time, every sensible person will be asking as to why wasn't she put on the next flight, boat, bus or Euro star high speed train back to her home and family in Italy?  There doesn't appear to be a single reason why the British state had to get involved at all.

Essex Council and the NHS trust applied to the high court that their plans for Ms Pacchieri and her unborn baby be kept secret both from Ms Pacchieri and the British public.

The judge who authorized this appalling episode was a Mr. Justice Mostyn, a fully paid up member of the remote political elite. On authorizing the NHS plan to force a cesarean and confiscate the baby thereafter, Justice Mostyn told the court that Ms Pacchieri should not know about the order before she is taken to the hospital.

The following exchange between Ms Pacchieri's state appointed representative and Justice Mostyn is chilling.

"My Lord, if it assists, it would be perfectly appropriate to include in the terms of the order that the substance of it shall not be communicated to the patient until after...the operation. If she disagrees with it she can apply afterwards to discharge it."

Justice Mostyn replied that it would be appropriate and also authorized the use of "reasonable and proportionate force if needed."

According to her lawyer, Ms Pacchieri has fully recovered from her panic attack, "she is strong, she has work, she has a job, she has a house, she has a normal life. There is absolutely no reason not to allow this woman a second chance"

All access by the mother is forbidden and the baby is up for adoption.

This system that is in place and the actions taken by the state in the form of the police, Essex Council social workers, the NHS trust and Justice Mostyn are supposedly in the best interests of the mother and child.

If this is so, then Justice Mostyn and the aforementioned state agencies might like to explain how it is in the best in interests of a child to be exposed to the mother who stabbed it with a kitchen knife when it was a baby, in an attempt to end its life.

The woman in question served five years in prison for the attempted murder of her newborn and was scheduled for deportation back to Bangladesh when Justice Mostyn intervened and halted the deportation on the grounds that it would not be in the child's best interests not to have exposure to the woman who stabbed it in a murder attempt. Also it would breach the mothers human rights not to have access to the baby she tried to kill.

Human Rights obviously don't apply to Italian women or their babies who's country also happens to be a member of the EU.

There is also the shocking case of Wanda Maddocks who was sentenced to prison by a secret court for removing her elderly father from a care home to which he consigned against his will by the state.

She did not know the her case had been tried in court nor was she represented by a lawyer. The first she knew about her sentence was when the police arrived on her doorstep to take her to jail.

This sort of secret authoritarian behavior by the state and its agents is unacceptable in a free country that prides itself on its centuries old tradition of civil liberties but with the current crop of self serving, agenda driven, career parasites in Parliament, I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for a solution.


  1. Is there a legal fighting fund for Alessandra Pacchieri ?
    What are the details?

    1. I am not aware of any fighting fund. The last I read was that the Italian government has consulted its legal eagles to see if the Pacchieri case can be taken up at government level.

      Politicians taking up the case doesn't fill me with confidence.

  2. When I first read this story a number of weeks ago, I was left puzzled by how/why the actions that were taken actually happened. I felt that surely there must be more to the story than was reported. For instance, had she in a moment of desperation claimed that she intended to harm her baby either before or after birth? Normally, a peson can only be sectioned if they pose a threat to themselves or others. Did she refuse medication whilst in hospital? Just how 'ill' was she? There are a lot of unanswered questions here. Not least those pertaining to the actions of the courts. To enforce such draconian measures is beyond me. Surely, even taking into account her ill health, it would have been safer (from the point of view of blame) to hand her over to Italian doctors, if necessary whilst still under section. Care and protect is what being under section is all about. As for the secrecy, surely this spells out the obvious departure from normal decency.


    1. The story goes that she was worried her medication would harm her baby.

      As I see it the lady was only 4 months pregnant so sending her back to Italy should have been the only option. What on earth has an Italian lady's pregnancy got to do with Essex social services?

      If the safety of the child was paramount why did the same judge, Justice Mostyn, allow access to the mother who stabbed her baby with a kitchen knife in an attempt to kill it.

      The disturbing aspect of this is that it was all done in secret.


    Just another social services story....
    with regard to the Italian lady, I hope she sues and gets paid a small fortune. However, why should the tax payers pay? Find those responsible and take them to the cleaners, sell their houses, take their pensions etc and if they cannot pay harvest their organs.

    1. That story reminds me of Rotherham council removing children from a family because they supported UKIP.

      I for one would love to see those responsible be brought to book for what they have done to this lady and made to pay.

      I would stop short of harvesting their organs on the grounds that they are tainted and would surely be rejected by any self respecting recipient body.

  4. Is there a more recent update of this case?

    1. Unfortunately with the 24 hour news cycle the issue is no longer news. I have checked but can find nothing new.

      Experience tells me that once the state has done something as draconian as this it will not back off. The lady has lost her child for ever.