Skip to main content

The Scottish Question

This Scottish Question is about adoption. Scotland had 120 children adopted from care in 5-6. England had 3,700 in 2006. Scotland has a population of about 5M and England about 51M. For all that it matters you can scale up the scottish figures by 10. That would give 1,200 adoptions from care.

Scotland has a form of jury in children's cases.

Is that the reason why more children are adopted from care in England than Scotland?

If it isn't what is?

Comments

moira said…
One judge who gave a woman her baby back after social workers in England had taken her others,said the English law system was contentious.

He criticised social services for entering her labour and said her circumstances had changed since she had lost the other children. In England they would automatically take the baby if others had been removed.

So maybe they have more common sense in Scotland's family courts and a different law system
watchdog said…
Maybe preparing for the courts with juries take longer and the social worker numbers per head of population are the same

or maybe the density of the population is lower so people get less stressed

or maybe the lower numbers in smaller settlements mean that neighbours are less likely to witness dodgy behaviour.

Clearly further research is necessary...come on social science schools....
moira said…
Scotland does have a serious drug problem and they do have a high rate of children going into care.

Maybe one reason is that the Scottish councils do not have financial and other incentives to adopt. Or has Tony Blair's targets reached Scotland yet?

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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…