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. …

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…