He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.So, that's teachers, social workers and police, all utterly ignorant of the fact that this man was indeed who he claimed to be - related to various European royal families and with a brother who is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN - and who regarded his concern for his children as grounds to lock him up!
But surely, you say, there are safeguards in the Mental Health Act, and the magistrates wouldn't allow this? Well, yes. And no:
The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.And that isn't considered a conflict of interest?
The mental health tribunal heard his story and gave him a complete discharge. However, the SS weren't about to give up so easily:
Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday.Heads should roll for this.
The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections.Excellent!
That gives us ground to lock up and remove the children of all those MPs who voted for their children, and the children of celebrities, to be exempt from the child database then, does it?