Jaysus! Removal is ON THE BASIS OF CHILD ABUSE! Anyone's children, of ANY racial group (white/black/Traveller/Indian), are removed from them and from their family in cases of child abuse to ensure that the child cannot be further abused, and are placed temporarily with a "trusted" foster family authorised by the State. When the court's found a safe place for them to be with their family, they go there. The reason for this is that child abuse may be "kept within the family" - for example, the grandparents may be the main abusers (this has happened before), and the physical safety of the child has absolute #1 priority over everything else.

Quoting the relevant UN resolution (from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm):-

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If you are saying that the relevant people in the social services removed the child *explicitly* with the intent to destroy the Roma/Pavee/Traveller ethnic group, you'd better have proof of that accusation, given that the severity of this crime is on a par with mass murder. Given the evidence against, and the fact that the same procedures would be followed for a person of any ethnic origin, you're pissing in the wind.

While we're on UN issues, check out http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/27.htm which is very relevant to this discussion. "Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with special reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally". This contains the line:-

When care by the child's own parents is unavailable or inappropriate, care by relatives of the child's parents, by another substitute--foster or adoptive-- family or, if necessary, by an appropriate institution should be considered.

The girl was placed with a foster family temporarily. As a permanent solution, she is now placed with her grandparents. Sounds like the UN would be perfectly happy with the situation. Find me a UN convention that says it's OK to leave a child with their abuser if the abuser is of some non-WASP ethnic origin, and I'll grant you the point; until then, I'll quote you another except from the same declaration:-

In all matters relating to the placement of a child outside the care of the child's own parents, the best interests of the child, particularly his or her need for affection and right to security and continuing care, should be the paramount consideration.

Graham.