Skip to main content

Understanding the Law and the Webster Case

I have just picked up on this case from Monday.

It goes to the nub of one of the legal arguments in child protection. There are fractures that can be diagnosed as Classic Metaphyseal Lesions from X-rays.

I have a report from the College of Radiologists that confirms that noone knows what proportion of children who have Metaphyseal fractures have obtained them through abuse.

There is a difficulty in that X-raying a child has some risk so you cannot just go around x-raying everyone.

However, a high proportion of children who have been abused (particularly fatally) have CMLs.

Let us assume for them moment that 90% of children with CMLs have them through abuse.

That means that 10% of children diagnosed with abuse haven't actually been abused.

They, however, are removed from their parents. Furthermore any other children that the parents have are removed from their parents.

There is an additional problem in that the 90% figure could be 40% and 60% of children who are removed from their parents for this reason (alone) would be removed wrongly.

The College of Radiologists say furthermore:
The diagnosis of child abuse is rarely made on the basis of a single metaphyseal fracture, and it is important that all the clinical, radiological and social aspects are taken into account before arriving at the diagnosis.

Every effort has to be made prior to this to ascertain from the parents/ carers of any possible mechanism, accidental or unintentional, that could account for the injury. Clearly one has to be certain that the observation truly represents a metaphyseal injury.

Child abuse by its very nature makes the performance of controlled studies very difficult.

It must be stressed that child abuse is a significant problem and failure to diagnose abuse may result in further abuse and possibly the death of the infant.


The problem is that the system starts grinding as soon as CMLs are diagnosed.
All the cogs then turn in their usual manner.

45% of prostitutes were in care. Can people not recognise that it is a good idea to keep children out of care.

(again, however, this statistic does not properly justify what quantative conclusions can be drawn as to the long term effect of being taken into care.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
"45% of prostitutes were in care. Can people not recognise that it is a good idea to keep children out of care."

That is the tragedy.

In one of my first jobs in teaching, a senior colleague who dealt regularly with Social Services, quietly checked with me that I got on well enough with certain (15/16 y.o.) kids for there to be no problems. His concern was that since that most children in care were destined for a life of prostitution or thieving, they should be kept out of potential problem situations, providing social workers with reasons to take them into care. In fact, I ended up "baby sitting" quite a few because of personality clashes between them and other members of staff.

In the early 1980s, all the school's senior management went to great lengths to keep children out of the hands of the social workers. I fear times have changed.

I have heard similar tales from the primary sector.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…