Skip to main content

Review into Child Protection

It seems to be that the government are going to have a review of Public Family Law. The question, however, is whether it will be wide ranging enough.

*edit Having Lord Laming look at what has happened since Climbie is thoroughly insufficient. Firstly, his proposals were unlikely to help in solving the wrong problem and actually making things worse. Secondly, this is taking the same person to look at the same issue which is likely to result in the same conclusions.

A typical family court nonsense.

Comments

Soapsoane said…
The central problem of this case is the tendency of bureaucracy to be counter intuitive and for professionals within that bureaucracy to believe that the structured confusion they adapt to is both human and humane.

It isn't.

Design and implementation of administration, monitoring of case work is based on a professional theory of 'mind' that does not consider real time and accruing issues for organisations that need dedicated community support (that itself is monitored.) over much longer budgeting periods.

It is no good to be able to 'fit' face to face substitutes into any case management template.

Professionals know this, and like deceitful and manipulative people they often work with, adjust their responses to the template rather than the job they really want to do.

Professionals need genuiness of purpose and real time community involvement in local areas that is budgeted for and seen as essential community and professional development.

This is the burning issue, now, for all bureaucracies, especially medical, social work and health professionals and the police service: how do they begin to create a workable connection with the really disconnected parts of our innermost cities (and souls) within a technological infrastructure desinged for the most part by very young people who live in the perpetual, fragmented now of frustrated online desire?

Systems of bureacucratic management of social problems are designed within this kind of mindset and, instinctively, professionals react ambivalently to this technology. At the moment it's narcissistic, we need people designing systems for social work professionals of all kinds who have worked in social inclusion successfully across the world.

The 'older' generation need to bite the bullet and get into their virtual and real neighbourhoods and reclaim the territory creatively and constructively: the unemployed, the housewives, the offenders, the retired are all restricted in their activities, restricted in being able to connect with the social problems around them becasue of this one dimensional bureaucracy and red tape.

If people felt their neighbourhoods: the empty properties, the shop units empty, the failing businesses around them were part of their neighbourhood and not just part of 'the market'...if government would give the green light to Job Centre Plus to pay unemplyed people, say £100 per week to choose a business or issue they want to help, give a structured account of what they want to do with that business or issue and a time scale, then you'd begin to make up the real gap in our society between the brutalised and the professional metricators and people would be able to help each other rather than just hate each other.

What do you think?

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…