Skip to main content

Part 8 Serious Case Reviews

The answer to the question about Serious Case Reviews is a critical issue. The whole objective of Child Protection is protecting children. Part 8 reviews are those where the system has clearly failed.

The question I am interested in is whether the obsession with social workers (and to some extent some paediatricians) with MSbP or FII and previously Satanic Abuse actually means that the system fails more frequently.

The Climbie case was a good example where the social workers were too busy with nonsensical enquiries into MSbP to take seriously the situation with Victoria Climbie.

One argument being put forward, which has some weight, is that we need to separate the enforcement aspect of Child Protection from the social support aspects of Social Services (now Children and Families).

It appears that the system fails on two fronts on an aggregate basis. It harrasses parents and children for what is basically normal life (shouting at the kiddies etc) and fails to protect children from being killed at the hands of their carers (mainly parents).

You cannot have a perfect system, but I am really not clear as to what the merits of the current system are.

It is, to be fair, difficult for some social workers who work in very difficult environments and deal with complex cases. However, we need to consider the system as a whole. If in the past 5 years there have been about 200-300 Serious Case Reviews that is a big issue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…