skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Fausty links to an article in the Telegraph, which quotes from the Mail, about what would appear to be malpractice by a doctor working for children's social services.
On 7th March I posted about this subject and that of Hollie Grieg, from which:
"Without in any manner denigrating the importance of the Hollie Grieg case, it should also be remembered that week after week Christopher Booker, in his regular Sunday Telegraph columns, reports on the injustices of child protection courts - examples here, here, here, and here - in which judgements are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question."
I ended that post thus:
"That the Hollie Greig case - and that of the child protection courts - leaves a nasty taste in the mouth cannot surely be denied. If questioned no doubt the powers that be will inform us that all decisions, both judicial and social, are taken with wisdom - yet there is an unpleasant smell starting to emanate."
If Dr Hibbert is guilty as alleged, then it must call into question all evidence that has been presented in child protection cases in which he has been involved. In that earlier post I asked some pertinent questions relating to what has actually happened to the 8,000 children taken into care each year for the past three years. Do the maths - that is 20+ children a day taken into care.
Returning to Christopher Booker, his column for tomorrow deals with instances where the 'right' report has been bought. A random trawl of 126 cases found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. As with Hibbert, this finding must also call into question the evidence presented in those 126 cases.
I don't know about an unpleasant smell starting to emanate - it has already become overpowering, fanned by the inactivity or interest of 649 MPs.
Update: Richard North posts on this problem - go read!
I am indebted to an email correspondent, Stuart, who directs me to an article by Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, which advises that members of the public will have the right to sit in judgment on misbehaving MPs for the first time under key parliamentary reforms to be announced. We are advised that the existing Standards and Privileges Committee is to be split into two separate bodies with members of the public able to apply for positions on the new Standards Committee, which will rule on disciplinary cases - although those members of the public admitted to membership of this new committee will not have voting rights.
I hope readers will forgive the repitition, but it is necessary to refer once again on this subject to the Coalition's "Our Programme for Government" in which it is stated (page 27)
"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."
only to discover, when the Bill was presented to Parliament, that the final decision will rest with a committee of an errant peer's 'elders'. In other words the original proposal was a sop to democracy, one intended to give the impression that power was being devolved when in fact power had not been devolved as the final decision remained with the political elite.
So it is with this latest idea. We will have to wait for the details, but it will be interesting to see whether these 'lay' members of the public will be in addition to the present number that sit on committees, or whether they will be included in that number - in any event they will be outnumbered by the MPs on the committee. When one reads that 'lay' members of the public will be involved, the impression is given that those 'lay' members will comprise the likes of you and me, 'ordinary' people, yet when one looks at the 'lay' members on the General Medical Council or the Solicitors Regulation Authority those 'lay' members are most definitely not 'ordinary' people. What will be the selection process and who will make the decision on those to be elevated to this new standards committee?
As with the recall of MPs, this latest idea to make Parliament more transparent and accountable to the public does anything but that - it retains all power in the hands of the few. Reading the comments (61 at the time of writing) there is not one in favour of this proposed idea - and in fact all are not only dismissive but include one request not to be a member of the committee, but a member of the firing squad.
If the existing Standards & Privileges Committee is to be split into two, then by the same reasoning should not the Privileges Committee also have 'lay' members? In fact, again as one commenter writes, should not both committees be comprised of 'lay' members?
This proposal is but another example of how our democratic system is broken, misused by the political elite for personal gain, whilst having reached the point whereby to apply the word democracy to it is not just a misnomer, it is deceitful. It is noticed that those two stalwarts of 'direct democracy', Hannan and Carswell, so far are absent from this debate - probably because 'their plan' continues the idea of central power and control.
In today's Sunday Telegraph Robert Watts, Deputy Political Editor, writes that George Osborne has a £10billion dilemma on his mind ahead of this month’s Budget. In view of this report in the WSJ which is a precis of a report from the Dow Jones Newswires - and on which Lord Stoddart commented in the House of Lords - one wonders if our George has clearance for his proposals, whatever they are.
Presumably the picture in the article shows George Osborne in suitable pose while waiting for said clearance.
