Sunday, 17 July 2011

Just for once can someone actually do something that is, "for the children"?

When we consider some of the draconian laws that have been imposed on us, envariably we are informed that it is: "for the children"; be it the 9pm watershed or the risk of second hand smoke. Needless to say MPs promptly pass these laws, the reasons for which are quite often based on unfounded so-called 'evidence'.

Currently, our MPs are part of the frenzy that is the "affair News International" in the course of which they have shut their eyes and ears to far greater problems that are looming on the horizon - for example the markets opening tomorrow morning, the opening of which will no doubt reflect their view of the impending euro crisis. The introspective attitude of our MPs has been illustrated by a tweet from Chris Bryant MP who is suggesting that Parliament may have to be recalled early to deal with this 'Murdoch problem'.

For some time now Christopher Booker has been reporting, to no avail it would seem, about the unacceptable, dictatorial attitudes of our child protection services who are taking children into care at a rate that has now reached more than 800 a month. His latest article appears in today's Sunday Telegraph in which he highlights two further cases of behaviour by children's social services, behaviour that cannot and must not be allowed to continue. Further examples of this unacceptable behaviour can be found here and here from previous postings of mine.

MPs cannot but fail to be aware of what can only be described as a travesty of justice and one that Christopher Booker rightly points out remain unchallenged, not least by the judges themselves. Where are the so-called 'Children's Charities' in this scandal? I have yet to see any report mentioning one voice from that source complaining about the high-handed attitude and behaviour of our childrens social services.

John Hemming MP has raised this matter in Parliament and wrote an article in the Guardian, citing amongst other cases that a parent had been barred from raising their plight with him about their children who had been taken into care. On this subject of the right of a member of the electorate to enlist the aid of his/her MP, Carl Gardiner has written an article on "HeadofLegal" from which it would appear that the idea of "its for the children" has also permeated the legal profession.

This is, admittedly, a complex matter yet MPs appear more interested in 'organising' their relationship with the media than other matters which are surely more important. 

When is a 'scandal' not a 'scandal? Only, it would appear, when it does not personally affect the lives of an MP!

4 comments:

PeterCharles said...

Don't expect Children's Charities to oppose Social Services, they are mutual back-scratchers validating each others prejudices.

It should also be noted that Charities are not necessarily the altruistic, wonderful, caring and honest bodies they portray themselves as. Look at their senior management staff salaries and the amounts they spend on public relations. Too many, especially the national/international ones are big businesses with a vested interest in maximising their importance, exaggerating the scope of what constitutes abuse, hence the preponderance of things like 'potential emotional harm' and equating a firm smack on the bottom with violent assault and in making the public generally fearful.

As to the failure of judges to act with common sense, well they rarely do whatever area of law they are practising and they have a natural bias toward taking any 'expert' or professional testimony at face value. I also rather suspect that their guidelines tell them to unconditionally support social services and to always err on the side of caution. Thus in child protection cases always assume guilt rather than innocence, easy to do when there are rarely any direct accusations in the kinds of case under consideration here.

Perhaps politicians and these professionals should be reminded that both Hitler and Stalin used the protection of children as a reason for introducing draconian laws in order to make them more palatable to the public.

Since we mentioned Hitler there are two quotes of his which are particularly apposite that we all should keep in the front of our minds: "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." and "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." from Mein Kampf

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC: Your first paragraph was in fact that which I intimated, although not in as many words?

Re the remainder of your comment, as ever I agree with what you say.

Ian said...

Social Services win 4 out of 5 of their adoption victories in England and Wales by citing "risk of future emotional abuse" in court. "Emotional abuse" has never been defined, in court or anywhere else.

No wonder judges and SS have been fighting the campaign to open up these kangaroo courts (with anonymity preserved).

WitteringsfromWitney said...

I: Classic example of club members looking after their own?