Skip to main content

Khyra Ishaq

The rather tragic case of Khyra Ishaq has occurred (and her siblings). Obviously we should not jump to any conclusions.

However, for a child of 7 - which is school age - to starve to death raises a large number of questions. After all it does not happen quickly.

In a sense it is a test of the new post Laming framework. We now have a vastly larger number of references to Childrens Services (Specialised Services in Birmingham). I have been concerned for some time at the overwhelming effect this has on the system.

I have always felt that the system should concentrate on the more serious cases. Superficially this appears to be one of those. However, although serious questions need to be answered now is not the time to speculate.

I must admit I have supported the calls from practitioners for the retention of the Child Protection Register in preference to the Common Assessment Framework - that puts all sorts of irrelevant information into a database.

However, questions will need to be answered.

Comments

Just a Mum said…
I keep saying it and I'll say it again .... we cannot blame the Local Autority for the death of a child that they are not aware needs urgent help (they were involved due to school bullying) you hve to be realistic, they are not superhuman, they are just normal people trying to do a job.

But Where was the childs father for over a year? and all the other relatives that came crawling out of the woodwork after she died?

The local MP will blame social services rather than look to his own community who ignored the fact that the children had been stealing scraps ... did they even bother to report it?

She deserved better and I am sure that had social services had an inkling of her situation they would have done something about it.
John Hemming said…
We as society, however, need to endorse the role of the wider family.

The Local Authorities normally act to exclude the extended family from considerations relating to children. This is a big mistake.

This, however, is a systematic problem not an individual problem.
Shoxx said…
Hello, Ive been looking for a blog to comment on this and glad to find one.

I am aware of certain elements of the media and the way Child Protection is reported. I emphasize that I do not subscribe to such elements of presumptions, blame and culpability especially when such elements are more to with the comments made by a certain politician rather than actual facts. Instead, I refer to the statement by Wes Cuell Senior Worker for the NSPCC who says:

"The main problem we have is a lack of continuity in council social services departments due to a shortage of permanent, experienced social workers..." (The Daily Telegraph, 24/05/08).

This statement is further compounded by Councilor Keith Barton Chairman of the Vulnerable Children Scrutiny Committee who says that:

"The local authority is short of up to 100 Social Workers.." (The Sunday Mecrcury 25/05/08)

The most distressing aspect of this case is that the local Area Office that deals with Child Protection is but a few minutes walk from the child's address. Furthermore, another council service 'The Rights of Children'
is also nearby.

It is unfair to blame the parents at this stage when appropriate intervention could have prevented the child's death from happening. Lets be realistic: we are talking about parents who live in Handsworth; an area considered to be low budget, an area that has been ignored by funding bodies, an area where nobody wants to live and that is still trying to pick itself up from the previous race riots few years ago...

It is said that the upbringing of a child is the responsibility of EVERYONE. In this age of big brother whereby we are all being watched says some thing depressingly familier to me.. nobody really cares.

There have been some really dark clouds hanging over Birmingham after this event, dark clouds of guilt.

You are absolutly right. Serious questions do need to be asked...

Thank you for reading and thank you for giving me the opportunity to get a few things off my cheast.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…