Theresa Riggi Like Moat Preferred Death To Social Services Removing Her Family

Theresa Riggi and her three children

Raoul Moat’s body is hardly buried, and we find yet another UK parent being deprived of their children, preferring to kill and die.  This time three children were killed by their mother Theresa Riggi, the day after a Judge ordered their removal from her care.

Family Courts meet in secret with reporting restrictions so we the public are not allowed to know on what basis all these children are being taken.  We can, however, see that the results are devastating for the people involved, and with two cases of maiming and murdering, following on from state child removal in less than a month.

I think it might be a good time for the government to review the situation.  Are these individuals telling us something about abuse of state power?

Why are 25,000 children a year being removed from their families in Britain?  Why are there targets for the numbers to be removed, and why are Local Authorities and their staff being paid substantial bonuses if they hit these targets, and social workers have been seen punching the air as the children are removed?

The parents who kill are not the only ones who believe an injustice is being committed –

VIDEO –  The Gulag of the family courts, and child stealing by the State.

Why is the State wanting to seize more and more kids?

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

7 Responses to “Theresa Riggi Like Moat Preferred Death To Social Services Removing Her Family”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I have a hard time following. You are criticizing the courts for meeting and ordering child removals from parental custody, however both cases you cite CLEARLY indicate that the parent involved was a danger to their child.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Harrowing, and quite frightening..the tip of the iceberg perhaps…but then it is so easy for the powers that be to clobber this with a paranoia tag.

  3. tapestry says:

    Re Moat, even his in-laws admitted he was a good father to his chidren. Re Riggi, what details have emerged about the case? It is all held in secret.

  4. Anonymous says:

    This case has not yet been properly investigated as far as I can make out. I think some of the circumstances are very suspicious. Riggi was clearly a doting mother, so if she did actually kill her children what made her do it? And why did she choose to slit their throats? A pretty terrible way to die. And then her own? I think there needs to be a much deeper investigation instead of just assuming she was responsible – she has not yet been questioned. She was clearly running from something, or someone. Of course the authorities have to intervene if there is abuse, which they failed to do in the case of poor Baby P, even though there were many indications of abuse. But to go after a woman, who by all accounts was a good mother, and maybe drive her to this – then they are as responsible for their deaths as she may be.

  5. Anonymous says:

    This was a custody battle. The children’s custody was awarded to their farther as the mother had proved to be mentally unstable.

    I find it incredibly distasteful that you twist the deaths of these children to pursue your political agenda.

  6. Tapestry says:

    Not a great decision as it turned out, taken in secret so we don’t know the details of the case.

    Farther is spelt father.

    I am twisting nothing, just stating what many feel, that Family Courts and Social Services are able to operate in secret, that they are targeted to remove as many children as they can, and paid large bonuses for doing so.

    The results can be explosive when the State removes children from parents and the action is seen as unjust. As onlookers we are deprived of all information in every case. I am concerned that targeting should be stopped, that reporting restrictions be removed, and parents not be sent to jail for publicly criticising the actions of Family Courts.

    Beyond that the Holly Greig case shows that we should be highly suspicious of the State’s motives in removing children from parents. There seems to be a big problem here. Read the Booker article. It is not political to state the facts.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.