Skip to main content

Ben Haslam and the Laming Report Changes

The link is to a story about an autistic child in Bedfordshire.

What is interesting about this story is the interrelationship between potentially care proceedings (although having seen the video they talk about S20 which is not a care order) and the activities of the Local Education Authority.

It has been argued that the care system is being made to act in the interests of the LEA as a result of the reorganisation of the care system to place Childrens Social Services in with Education as Childrens Services.

I don't know enough about this particular case to make any judgment. I am, however, concerned about the over use of care proceedings in relation to children with ADHD and whose condition lies in the Aspergers Spectrum.

Interestingly this also relates to the close of an LA special school. The agenda of so called "inclusion" is clearly causing exclusion for some children. Perhaps in this case we should be questioning the closure of the special school rather than trying to work out the merits of "The Shires" at £250K pa or the LA's proposal at £120K pa. Frankly, however, given the current costs of care (residential or foster) it strikes me as odd that the LA's costs are as low as they claim.

However, there is a great resistance to working with parents (and the extended family) in Childrens Specialised Services. This cannot be good for the children.

Comments

Linda Jack said…
I know a little about Beds Social Services having been Unison Branch Secretary and had to deal with a lot of their incompetence. I absolutely agree with you on this. I met someone whilst canvassing in Luton during the GE who told a terrible tale of the impact the closure of a respite home had had on them. Happy to talk to you about this if you like

L
chaslam said…
In Ben's case all agreed that continuity of care was vital and the only solution offered to the parents was for this special school + care home solution. Other special schools in and out of county was asked about but deemed unsuitable by the LEA. The 'package' approach meant taking Ben into care was the only solution being offered by the Local Authority. No able child would ever be treated in this way. It is pure discrimination. It also gives Ben nothing like the 24/7 52 week a year education that he is currently thriving on at the Shires.

Your comment on costs is interesting as the costs cited by the LEA were those given to the tribunal which was a single figure. However, on seeing the breakdown, we felt that the costs did not add up to the agreed care level (although an official up-to-date statement is still outstanding). However, to submit this as evidence to the High Court appeal would have meant making a counter appeal that would have cost tens of thousands of pounds.

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. …

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…

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…