Skip to main content

Comment is Free - Guardian - comments closed

The Guardian kindly invited me to write for their blog area which I did (it is linked). Because they couldn't moderate such a legally sensitive area over the weekend they have shut down comments.

One by someone with a pseudonym "niceday99" is well informed and deserves a proper response - to the technical points made.

As I understand it, you're basically suggesting that the adoption system of 1999 was doing just about ok, albeit pretty borderline, but that the introduction of an adoption target overloaded it. But why was it "creaking" in the first place? Was it a case of lack of proper checks and balances, or was it simply a funding issue?
It is the failure of the proper checks and balances rather than funding

Adoption is an expensive process and the number of adoptions will be limited by the resources available to purchase and support adoptive placements. In other words, give local authorities more money to fund this (up front cash, not paying by results by the way) and more adoptions will take place, even without a national target. This is basically what happened.
The statistical evidence is that a new age cohort of children were taken into care then adopted. It is not the case that the children "languishing in care" were adopted.

You could be referring to Local PSAs (and if you are then please be specific)
It is the LPSA adoption targets totalling a reward of £36 million that were part of driving towards greater numbers of adoptions. However, the management and inspection pressure from then CSCI now Ofsted also acts to achieve the same result.
The issue was one of changing priorities. That can be achieved in a number of ways.


If LPSAs were met, more money was provided - but do your sums, would this bonus cash outweigh the extra costs to the local authority of snatching all these extra children and having them adopted?
I do have some of the "spend to save" plans of local authorities to obtain the (L)PSA monies.

LPSA money is a drop in the ocean by comparison.
The objective of LPSA funding was a culture change

"babies, known as "adoptible commodities" in the profession"

What is your source for this?
Reported conversations at Adoption Panels

Comments

watchdog said…
the "adoptable commodities" word was reported to John Hemming by Emily Cox who is a member of the adoption and fostering panel and it was widely believed that her revelation of this fact lead to social services action against her

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…