Skip to main content

The wrong children taken into care

This story in the Sunday Times looks at the evidence that the numbers of deaths from child abuse and neglect are not going down and possibly going up. That is at a time when more children are taken into care.

It is important to remember that taking a child into care is supposed to be a measure to prevent significant harm. Hence if the numbers taken into care are going up, but it is having no effect on the most significant harm of death then a question should be asked as to whether the right things are being done.

There always will be a financial need to limit the number of children taken into care. When Haringey were considering whether or not to take Peter Connolly into care they were under severe pressures. The fact is that there were children in care at the time in Haringey who were taken into care because their mother might say things to them that might undermine their self esteem. If those children were not in care there would have been space for Peter Connolly.

It isn't difficult to understand, but it appears to be beyond the government. If you take the wrong children into care there is not only the injustice for those children and their families, but also more children die.

The absence of an intellectually rigorous system for quality control on care decisions lies behind this.

Comments

How refreshing to hear someone talk straightforwardly and bravely about what is going on in the children's 'care' industry.

After today's revelations in Scotland on the former head of the children's panels - another agency that makes egregious decisions that can and often does overturn sheriff court decisions and blight the lives of mothers, fathers and their children forever, people more or less plucked from obscurity with no more than 45 hours 'training' - the content of this blog is a welcome reversal of opinion. Thank you.
How refreshing to hear someone talk straightforwardly and bravely about what is going on in the children's 'care' industry.

After today's revelations in Scotland on the former head of the children's panels - another agency that makes egregious decisions that can and often does overturn sheriff court decisions and blight the lives of mothers, fathers and their children forever, people more or less plucked from obscurity with no more than 45 hours 'training' - the content of this blog is a welcome reversal of opinion. Thank you.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…