Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes
The case illustrated in this book has in many ways been decided on the opinion of one man, a psychiatrist. I use the word opinion, as there is basically no factual medical evidence based on clinical tests that can be associated with his opinion. Therefore it is nothing more than an opinion devoid of clinical fact, it is not a diagnosis.
The result is based on the propaganda of self interest, in this case money, hence the comment “I go where the money is” in Chapter 9. The opinion offers only garbled and incomplete evidence in the very loosest of form. The opinion avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victim by the mere repetition of catchwords and phrases.
This opinion was based on history, much of which is inaccurate and open to more than one avenue of interpretation. Needless to say the avenue chosen was the one that suited the local authority’s paymasters.
The use of history, especially history where its veracity is in doubt, provides answers that are neither logical nor moral. By taking that course one becomes encumbered by history when the path taken should be to look to the future based on the present. Too many seek to find fault in the past and apply their findings to the present. They do this in their desire to influence others to accept that this is the way life will be in the future, any one who looks at life in this way brings a sense of stagnation to the present. They themselves have their minds locked in the past; they have closed their mind to progress, to change and show a sense of bitterness towards others with the ability to change and progress.
They decree that the past predicts the future. The future is as yet unwritten and as such must be approached with a totally open mind. To do otherwise is to deny that there is such a thing as life changing events. Events that direct one away from the past and from becoming a slave to the restriction of historical thought.
Throughout the local authority expected this mother to behave as predictably as a pre-programmed machine. She was expected to cease to have any thoughts, judgment or will of here own. In this scenario Big Brother is no longer a TV programme but has become a reality worthy of its Orwellian origins. 1984 had ceased to be a novel and began to be used by the local authority as an instruction manual.
The way the local authority act when confronted with logical argument is the change their method of attack. This happens constantly when their thoughts are challenged and proven to be wrong.
Here we have a mother who has demonstrated a cohesiveness and common purpose in being constant in her approach. Mentally and physically she has always put her daughter’s interest before her own. There has been no deviation from her actions and desires as there has been in the approach taken by the local authority.
One must ask why the local authority act in the manner they do. Are they afraid to admit that they are capable of making mistakes? Is this constant changing of direction a reaction to the fact that they have committed too heavy a reliance on their own inward looking criteria? Are they guided by the sole purpose of their existence to the fact that they operate within a system that they themselves know to be corrupt?
Is there a much more simple explanation? That to them it is all just a game where they hold the rule book and that they cannot see beyond that. That they have become so entrenched with winning that they don’t care who they destroy in the process.
In this approach they are protected by the system. The fact that all court hearings are held behind closed doors gives an indication to the machinations that occur. Were openness and honestly to prevail then the constant changing of the goal posts would be seen for what it is. There is too much reliance on this secrecy that tends to show that the local authority have really nothing factual to work with. They know that with the court process being secret they cannot be challenged in the same way as they would be in open court. This gives them the opportunity to direct the judge to allow perjury knowing they will never be prosecuted.
Is there any government service, local or national that can come before the Bar of Justice and claim that it exemplifies moral right? My answer is no. They gave up the moral ground when they decided to follow the path they now take. They became puppets to the system, to the corruption and to their scheming and evil trade in the destruction of the family.
So the real question remains
Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes