John Hemming's Web Log John's Reference Website
Friday, August 30, 2013
  Ed Milliband on Syria: the danger of a political strategy where you expect to lose
In essence Ed Milliband's position on Syria was essentially the same as the government's. Hence he needed to lose to avoid people noticing that his position is tactical rather than based upon principle.

There are a number of principled positions. However, his position was pure oppositionism. He now faces the real difficulty that although his amendment failed he also voted against the substantive and defeated that.

How can he justify that?

  Syria: Labour's Amendment (490 MPs were willing to consider military action potentially)
It is worth looking at Labour's Amendment
expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that:

(a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;

(b) compelling evidence is produced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;

(c) the UN Security Council has considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;

(d) there is a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;

(e) such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and

(f) the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action, and that any such vote should relate solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.’.
There is not actually that much difference between Labour's amendment and the government motion. Both consider that there are circumstances in which military action may ensue.
Looking at the Two divisions on public whip

In favour   69       70

Alliance     0        0   
Con          0      239 (+2 tell)
DUP          4        0
Green        0        0
Ind          0        0
Lab        207 (+2)   0
LDem         0       31
PC           3        0
SDLP         0        0
SNP          6        0 
Total:     220 (+2) 270 (+2)
Hence a total of 490 MPs (+4 tellers) voted for a motion that did not rule out military action. Some MPs voted against both motions. Caroline Lucas oddly abstained on the Labour amendment, but voted against the Government Motion. I would have thought she would have voted against military action completely. Naomi Long and Sylvia Hermon, however, voted against both. Oddly enough only 6 Labour MPs voted entirely against the possibility of military action whilst 11 Lib Dems did and 30 Conservatives. (on the assumption that those who voted against the government motion also voted against Labour's amendment). I have not done the detailed work by MP, but would assume that the totals I have used from the summaries imply the details.

The media narrative, however, is different.

Thursday, August 29, 2013
  Syria - so far
It is, of course, an unusual situation to have both the opposition amendment fall and the government motion fall. I was concerned about the issue as to whether UK bases would be used by anyone attacking Syria without a motion in parliament. I, therefore, obtained an assurance from the government before voting for the motion.

I voted for the motion on the following grounds:
a) We were assured that there would be no UK involvement in any military activity in Syria without a further vote. I had this clarified to include UK bases not being used by other countries without parliament's consent.
b) I do think we need a humanitarian response. We should not exclude any military action if this is required by the International Criminal Court or the Security Council. However, we should use the international bodies.
c) In the absence of a motion there is nothing to bind the government. Happily David Cameron is not Tony Blair and he will not be using the Royal Prerogative without a motion from parliament.

In the end, however, we don't at the moment have a motion agreed on Syria. I will be continuting to argue for working with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

The motion which was not agreeing an attack in principle (or anything else) was as follows:
That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical 5 weapons under international law; Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League Calling for the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

Saturday, August 24, 2013
  Adoptive parents gagged from talking anonymously to the media
This case is an interesting one that I know well. I know it well because I drafted some of the paperwork for the successful appeal earlier this year. A number of adoptive parents have contacted me about their concerns with the way the system works. I believe it is right that they should be allowed to warn people of how badly the system can go wrong. However, the judiciary have been resisting this. This is an example.
Friday, August 23, 2013
  Local authorities cannot be trusted with the care of children
This story in The Times confirms that local authorities have a tendency to be complacent about the care of children in local authority care. This was also clear in A and S v Lancs CC [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam).

The underlying problem is that it is not possible to challenge the way in which a local authority is caring for a child from outside the local authority. The Independent Reviewing Officer is an employee of the local authority and hence not independent. I proposed in my private members bill a system where the LA would be open to challenge. Unsurprisingly the Association of Childrens Services Directors opposed this. The government opposed the bill. The government believes in trusting local authorities implicitly in caring for children that they are responsible for. I do not.

Thursday, August 22, 2013
  The law and agents of the state
The issue of David Miranda has obtained quite a bit of public attention. That of Leah McGrath Goodman is perhaps more important, but has not managed to get anything like the same attention. In both of these cases the questions are ones about whether agents of the state are abusing their position.

In the Miranda case because "Reasonable Suspicion" is not needed then the actions were probably within the law. I don't think the same applies to the other case, but we still don't have the CCTV from that although it happened in 2011.

There are many agents of the state that have compulsive powers under the law or can apply for them, the police, border agency staff, the security services, social workers, housing officers etc.

In many cases the underlying intentions may in fact be beneficial to society. Preventing terrorist attacks has to be a top priority for the government. However, the wrongful use of such powers can not only be based on erroneous information or even oppressive by virtue of being disproportionate (and in such in conflict with the original Magna Carta), but also act to undermine society by damaging people's trust in the constitutional settlement.

It is, therefore, important that the law is both proportionate and also followed by public officials. Sadly often this is not the case. Taking out judicial review actions is much like grabbing the tail of a tiger. The threat of legal costs being charged against the applicant often acts to protect misbehaving public authorities. The failure, for instance, of the GMC to investigate the [non fatal] poisoning of babies with Carbon Monoxide in experiments was in my view one of those failures.

The use of secret courts is also something that acts to undermine the requirement for public officials to follow the law. Yesterday, for example, there was a case UQ13C00036 heard in the High Court. It was a very important case for many reasons, but was in secret so we cannot comment in detail about it. In my view the Judge who heard the case was excellent in the way he dealt with the case, but still I am not allowed to go into any details.

This lack of transparency which to be fair the same judge is making some progress in dealing with, does undermine the accountability of public officials. Let us hope that this is not used to shunt the Miranda Judicial Review into a judicial siding.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013
  What happens if a local council gives you planning permission by mistake?
This case is an interesting one on Bailii from Scotland. Basically the Local Authority COmmittee refused permission, but the letter written to the applicant said that permission had been granted.

It is a long judgment that is worth reading and is relevant to English Law to some extent not least as to legal principles. The LA issued a notice in error saying permission had been granted. Then years later after building works had happened they issued a backdated notice purporting to supersede the original notice refusing permission. The court concluded that the second notice was invalid.

I have for some time been interested the basis upon which estoppel can be used to stop misbehaviour by public officials. Often people are promised outcomes for a particular action, but then the LA does a reverse ferret.

Still, an interesting judgment to read.

Friday, August 16, 2013
  DHP Sandwell
The government have allocated Sandwell 740K and as at end July they have spent 133K and allocated 93K. That is a third of the year. If you go by the spending they would spend 399K and spending plus allocation (which is toppy) it would be 678K. There is the uncertainty about the benefit cap, but otherwise Sandwell don't look like they are going to spend beyond the government allocation.
  Where are all the other contempt cases?
This is a judgment in accordance with the Practice Direction of 3rd May. The case was on 19th June and the initial view of the court was that they did not need to produce a judgment. I raised a concern with the office of the President, he produced the more recent circular and we pointed that at Derby County Court who produced a judgment.

However, there would going by past history have been at least 10-15 contempt imprisonments between May and the end of July if not a lot more. However, there have been only two judgments produced, both at the instigation of Justice for Families activists.

Where are all the other contempt cases?
The government should track this, but have not been bothered to do so.

  Mother to be deported whilst her child is kept for adoption
This JR judgment (which I have anonymised) is about an American woman:
jrjugdmentanon She was living here and her child was taken into care. Now she is to be deported and her child kept for adoption. An application was made for judicial review which has failed (this documents the failure).
I am surprised that the US government are comfortable about this (if they know).

It also raises a question for her child in the future. When (as is often the case with adopted people) the child asks what happened to her mother he or she will be told that:
a) We took you off her
b) We locked her up preventing her from properly appealing the decisions
c) Then we deported her ... and
d) No you are not allowed to know the reasons for this.

Incidentally at the moment the people trying to help this mother are trying to get other applications made on her behalf, but she needs to sign them. She is in prison (for immigration reasons) and is not being allowed to sign them.

Thursday, August 15, 2013
  Mike Clarke's Video Petition to the Queen
This is Mike Clarke's video petition to the queen.

A petition to the Monarch is protected under Article V of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is here.
and Article V states:
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.

This is also referred to in the first amendment of the US Constitition which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is in fact Article V that means that some court orders do not have a valid jurisdiction (such as court orders that prevent people complaining about crimes - one further one of which was referred to me this week, and those which purport to prevent people talking to MPs or appealing decisions.). In fact that is the basis upon which Wanda Maddocks should win her appeal on imprisonment once it goes in. (If it goes in, she is back in Turkey).

In any event a short summary of Mike Clarke's case is that it started with him complaining about the charges made by a solicitor for his mothers' issues and ended up with him being given a 3 month prison sentence in absentia. He is caring for his mother in Spain and cannot return to the UK. Contempt of Court is not a criminal issue and hence he cannot be extradited.
  Litigant in Person wins appeal against Bank of Scotland on Harrassment
This case which is Johnson v Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 982 is an appeal in which a Mrs Johnson, as a litigant in person, won an appeal against the Bank of Scotland for harrassing her to pay a debt to the bank.

She won the appeal because it was concluded by the court of appeal that she had an arguable case that the bank had been harrassing her. I am surprised this has not got any publicity as far as I have seen. Still I thought I would put it on my web log as an interesting case. (A shot across the bows for aggressive banking practise).

  IN THE MATTER OF M (A CHILD) [2013] EWCA Civ 1007 - Why is the baby in care?
This case on Bailii is an unusual thing to find on Bailii as it is a refusal of permission to appeal.

Quoting from the judgment: 2. Again, offering no more than a summary, the reasons for that decision, which was the removal of the three children from the mother who had been caring for them, and a decision that (a) the threshold criterion section 31 of the Children Act were satisfied in relation to the care given by the mother, and (b) that they should not be returned to the mother's care, was justified, apparently not on any shortfall in the mother's ability to provide practical day-to-day parenting to her children, but arose from the mother's personality and her ability to act in a way which would cause the children significant harm to their emotional and social development.

and 10. Happily, on one basis, this case is not about a mother who is incompetent or unable to provide ordinary, good enough or even good physical and practical care for her children. Unhappily, and frustratingly for all involved, I dare say, particularly the mother and the children, the concern about the mother's ability to parent is more subtle and harder to pinpoint, but it arises from her personality and the potential for the children to be upset by unpredictable actions or words that she may from time to time exhibit.
We live in a country in which children have been starved to death by their parents without intervention by the state. However, a local authority deems is necessary to keep a baby in care at probably a cost of £40,000 per year because of "the potential for the children to be upset by unpredictable actions or words that she may from time to time exhibit."

The question I ask is one as to whether this is the right threshold for "risk of significant harm" or indeed an Article 8 intervention into the development of a baby that has been passed from foster carer to foster carer.

Should the state not concentrate on protecting children from a risk of serious and harmful maltreatment rather than being "upset".

It also raises the question as to what it is about what the mother might say that warrants this. I do think the courts should have revealed that in this judgment. It doesn't seem right to me.

This is also proof that the Irish Courts are not really bothering to look at individual cases. They are simply trying to drive people back to England. I am aware of two pregnant mothers intending to leave the UK at the moment. One is going to France and the other to Belgium.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013
  Crimes against Humanity
The Rome Statute is interesting in that it defines crimes that are prosecutable on an extrajurisdictional basis. One is a "crime against humanity".
The Rome Statute Can be found here. The following are extracts from Article 7.
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Thursday, August 08, 2013
  Experts must be Neutral (LASHIN v. RUSSIA)
This case which was in the European Court of Human Rights was recently pointed out to me.

Paragraph 87 states:
The Court reiterates that where the opinion of an expert is likely to play a decisive role in the proceedings, as in the case at hand, the expert’s neutrality becomes an important requirement which should be given due consideration. Lack of neutrality may result in a violation of the equality of arms guarantee under Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, 5 July 2007, with further references). In the Court’s opinion an expert’s neutrality is equally important in the context of incapacitation proceedings, where the person’s most basic rights under Article 8 are at stake.
It is, of course, obvious that this is the case under UK law. However, assessments by employees of the local authority continue to be relied upon in family court cases of all sorts. There is additionally the repeat player prejudice problem with the joint appointment of experts. It is, however, important to remember that an assessment by a social worker who deems that grandparents in their 50s are too old to care for a baby is an experts report that must have neutrality.

Wednesday, August 07, 2013
  The "Bedroom Tax" DHP Dudley and Rehousing
I now have the figures for DHP in Dudley. Of a total budget of £494,398 as at 30th June £95,506.18 had been committed of which only £73,910.35 related to the first quarter (was spent) That is just under 20% committed and under 15% actually spent for a quarter of the financial year.

This is, of course, before the increase in funding provided by the government.

A big issue, however, appears to be that local housing authorities are not doing enough to rehouse people who are overcrowded. I have a few cases where nothing much is happening even though there are people who wish to downsize.

  Mike Clarke and his mother Ann (on the run in Spain)
Mike Clarke has been on the run in Spain for some time. He was on the run because he was given a 3 month prison sentence for contempt because he failed to remove what he put on the internet relating to a court of protection case. Since that point (and I am not sure when this happened) the judiciary have published a number of judgments relating to his case. There is a court of appeal case:
And a number of COP cases:
[2012] EWHC 2947 (COP)
[2012] EWHC 2714 (COP)
[2012] EWHC 2256 (COP)

What is interesting is that the judgment relating to his imprisonment (which should have been public in any event) has not been published.

Contempt of court is not an extraditable issue. However, at the moment he is a bit stuck in Spain and unable to return to the UK. I do personally think there should be a published judgment explaining why he was imprisoned. The new practice directions require this (I accept the case happened before the issuance of the new PD, but after the imprisonment of Wanda Maddocks). There also needs to be a way forward without public funds being wasted on imprisoning someone where it is difficult to see the public interest in imprisoning him.

Summary from the judgments I have extracted some elements from the judgments.
3. The background is that in 1995, Mrs Clarke suffered serious injuries, including brain injuries, in a road traffic accident. She later received damages of £775,000, calculated on the basis of a life expectancy of 70. Mr Jones was appointed as receiver because Mrs Clarke's children could not agree who should be appointed to administer this fund.
7. Since the beginning of 2010, Michael Clarke has carried on an online campaign against the Deputy, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection. He has routinely placed copies of confidential documents and expressions of his strong opinions on a website.
11. Capacity assessments of Mrs Clarke have been performed by Dr Donna Schelewa, Consultant Clinical Psychologist. She examined Mrs Clarke in December 2010 and found her to have neurological deficits predominantly characterised by very poor verbal expressive skills (dysphasia). She nonetheless concluded that Mrs Clarke had the capacity
to decide where and with whom to live
to manage a small income
to make a will
to appoint Michael Clarke to act as her deputy
to give her house to Michael Clarke
13. On 16 November 2011, the present application was issued and directions were given by the court. Michael Clarke immediately objected to the lawfulness of the proceedings on the basis that they have no legal authority. It is his fixed view that "statute law" has no effect and that the matter must be decided under "common law".
20. On 2 July, Dr Waite assessed Mrs Clarke and wrote a report. He diagnoses cognitive impairment following brain injury and ischaemic brain damage (ICD 10 F07.8). He advises that Mrs Clarke has severely limited abilities to manage her finances and that she cannot manage her financial affairs generally
She cannot manage her day to day financial affairs
She cannot understand and use information about transferring her property to Michael Clarke during her lifetime
21. Dr Waite further concludes that
While there is no doubt that Mrs Clarke trusts Michael Clarke and wants him to act on her behalf in the management of her financial affairs, it is not possible to assess the level of influence that Mr Clarke has over his mother on a single visit: this would require an extended period of separation that is not in her best interests.
22. Similarly, the possibility of undue influence upon Mrs Clarke cannot be confirmed or excluded on the basis of his assessment.
Dr Waite also says that
Mrs Clarke clearly wishes to bequeath her Blackpool property to Michael Clarke, understanding that, by doing so, she will not leave anything to her other children or her grandchildren. He believes that she would have the capacity to make a will for this purpose.
27. The Deputy said that the question now is whether the property should be sold. If it is not, there is no purpose in the deputyship. If it is, he would be prepared to continue to act at a proportionate fixed cost.
(from another judgment)
The costs of Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke and of the Deputy shall be charged to the estate of Mrs Ann Clarke.
Pursuant to CPR Rule 164:
(i) The costs of Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke are summarily assessed at £3500 + VAT;
(ii) The costs of the Deputy are summarily assessed at £7000 + VAT.
The issues
The issues are more issues with the way the law works rather than necessarily issues with the judges interpretation of the law.
The first issue, which is common in cases like this, is that the Deputy (previously a Receiver) has total control over the finances. That also means control over any funds requested to prove that someone has capacity. (this creates a conflict of interest in that the deputy can refuse to facilitate a challenge to the deputy's control of the estate)
The second issue is the question as to what controls there are or accountability in terms of what the Deputy charges the estate. I have not found OPG to be that good in other cases.
The third issue is whether Mrs Clarke had sufficient capacity to discharge the deputy at an earlier stage or not. Evidence exists to state that she did, but it was not considered in these judgments.
The fourth issue is that the estate pays the costs of the deputy when the deputy is discharged even though the deputy opposes the application.

An additional point to note is under the para 13 above. There are a number of people who argue against the sovereignty of parliament and statute law. They argue instead for what they call common law and the Magna Carta. There is a fundamental flaw in their arguments in that Magna Carta is itself statute law and not common law. What is left of it can be found on the legislation website here. There is a good argument for the extension of jury trials to cover more circumstances (particularly public law family proceedings). However, the arguments put forward by the "Freeman of the Land" achieve very little. I can understand people getting to despair about how the courts when it comes to matters like this. However FMOTL is flawed. I have never seen anything good come out of this in any case. I have even seen a case where someone's mental capacity was removed following arging a FMOTL case.

In the mean time Mike and Ann Clarke are stuck in Spain.

Saturday, August 03, 2013
  Oaklands Park Master Plan (see map)
72813 L36F Oaklands Masterplan This is the current master plan for comments. It is best if comments are sent to the council, but I will pass any made on this web log post as well. It is better really to email comments to my team with names and addresses so people can have acknowledgments from the council.
Friday, August 02, 2013
  Children Taken into care of all ages
I have been asked for figures as to the total number of children taken into care. I make a distinction between those children voluntarily placed in care under S20 and those subject to a care order (interim or final) emergency protection order or taken into police protection (often called wrongly a police protection order).
These are the figures I have
1993 4,000
1994 5,100
1995 5,600
1996 5,800
1997 6,100
1998 7,100
1999 7,100
2000 7,700
2001 7,000
2002 7,400
2003 8,100
2004 7,600
2005 7,800
2006 7,700
2007 7,700
2008 7,440
2009 8,180
2010 9,580
2011    9,560
2012   10,100
These come from SSDA903.
  Daniel Pelka - more of the wrong children are being taken into care
I have for some time been raising concerns that the wrong children are being taken into care. The threshold for removing a child into care is at times so low that the system gets clogged up with cases where intervention is wrong.

I made this point after the death of Peter Connolly. If you look at the trends in terms of numbers the numbers subject to care orders increased dramatically after his death. However, cases like Khyra Ishaq and Daniel Pelka continue to occur.

In the mean time the government and Martin Narey put as a priority increasing adoptions rather than preventing children from dying as a result of abuse. I personally think that is wrong. It creates an environment in which experienced social workers are fired if they believe that in an individual case a child should be returned to its parents.

My own view is that we should reprioritise the care system into protecting children first and foremost rather than satisfying government targets (or statistical pressures). I made the point in the ministerial office that it is not possible to make proper decisions from Whitehall. The decisions need to be made on the ground.

Here are the numbers of under 5s (Baby P - Peter Connolly, Daniel Pelka) taken into care since 1995.

1995 3,800
1996 3,900
1997 4,100
1998 4,700
1999 4,900
2000 4,700
2001 5,100
2002 5,300
2003 5,700
2004 5,700
2005 6,000
2006 6,200
2007 6,200
2008 6,100
2009 6,600
2010 7,500
2011 8,200
2012 8,700
Are children any safer now that more than twice the number of toddlers are taken into care than was the case in 1995?

(The statistics relate to the years ending 31st March, they include only children compulsorily taken into care and come from the SSDA903 return and apply only to England).

Click Here for access to higher resolution versions of the photos The license for use allows use of the photos by media as long as they are attributed.

better brent chart

12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 / 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 / 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 / 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 / 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 / 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 / 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 / 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 / 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 / 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 / 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 / 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 / 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 / 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 / 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 / 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 / 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 / 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 / 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 / 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 / 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 / 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 / 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 / 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 / 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 / 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 / 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 / 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 / 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 / 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 / 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 / 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 / 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 / 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 / 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 / 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 / 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 / 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 / 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 / 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 / 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 / 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 / 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 / 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 / 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 / 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 / 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 / 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 / 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 / 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 / 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 / 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 / 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 / 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 / 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 / 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 / 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 / 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 / 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 / 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 / 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 / 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 / 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 / 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 / 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 / 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 / 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 / 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 / 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 / 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 / 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 / 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 / 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 / 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 / 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 / 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 / 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 / 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 / 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014 / 05/01/2014 - 06/01/2014 / 06/01/2014 - 07/01/2014 / 07/01/2014 - 08/01/2014 / 08/01/2014 - 09/01/2014 / 09/01/2014 - 10/01/2014 / 10/01/2014 - 11/01/2014 / 11/01/2014 - 12/01/2014 / 12/01/2014 - 01/01/2015 / 01/01/2015 - 02/01/2015 / 02/01/2015 - 03/01/2015 / 03/01/2015 - 04/01/2015 / 04/01/2015 - 05/01/2015 / 05/01/2015 - 06/01/2015 / 07/01/2015 - 08/01/2015 / 08/01/2015 - 09/01/2015 / 09/01/2015 - 10/01/2015 / 10/01/2015 - 11/01/2015 / 11/01/2015 - 12/01/2015 / 12/01/2015 - 01/01/2016 / 01/01/2016 - 02/01/2016 / 02/01/2016 - 03/01/2016 / 03/01/2016 - 04/01/2016 / 04/01/2016 - 05/01/2016 / 05/01/2016 - 06/01/2016 / 06/01/2016 - 07/01/2016 / 08/01/2016 - 09/01/2016 / 09/01/2016 - 10/01/2016 / 10/01/2016 - 11/01/2016 / 11/01/2016 - 12/01/2016 / 03/01/2017 - 04/01/2017 / 04/01/2017 - 05/01/2017 /

Powered by Blogger

Published, promoted, and printed (well not really printed I suppose, more like typed) by John Hemming, 1772 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 1PB. Hosted by part of 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, United States of America. This blog is posted by John Hemming in his personal capacity as an individual.

Site Feed

If you want me to respond to any comment please either comment only on the past few entries or put something in your comment to make it clear what you are commenting on (the URL would help). Otherwise I will not be able to find the comment quickly and will not respond.

Links (c) Peter Black (mainly Lib Dem)
Meter eXTReMe Tracker