Sunday, November 16, 2008
BABY P & THE "CARING PROFESSION" RACKET
The unacknowledged link between these child killing incidents & the amount of crime is the break up of the traditional family. I rather hate to say this because I would like hippyism to work & even think that something derived from it will some day. However it has been statistically demonstrated many times that inmates of prison, the illiterate, homeless, alcoholics & almost every other indication of human failure come proportionately many 10s of times more often from those without a father or brought up in social “care”. The same applies with cases like this obscenity, or those much less blatant, which don’t get reported. The killing is virtually never done by the father but by the mother’s new boyfriend or even the mother herself.
Children need a father, boys in particular need one more than they need the mother.
Because it is politically incorrect to say this & because the empire building of social work departments requires ever more children to “care” for the actions of social workers have been, on balance, hugely destructive to society & the individual they “help”. This is how you get a £100 million budget as anybody who understands Public Choice Theory knows.
At all stages they support custody going to the mother & have often been actively involved in trying to persuade the mother to break up the family.
There is of course, far more work for them if the child is stuck with a useless mother, or in a “care home”.
One obvious answer is to encourage adoption & we can see that far from doing so social work departments actively prevent adoption because it weaken their power. It is otherwise impossible to explain how they could refuse to remove baby P while at the same time they are denying couples the right to adopt or even foster because they smoke, though there is no real evidence that passive smoking is any sort of problem at all let alone a serious one.
If, as soon as it was known the baby was being harmed, presumably 59 visits ago, the mother & boyfriend had been arrested for something relatively minor like GBH & the child removed to the care of either his father or adopted he would be happy & alive & even the mother & boyfriend would have a better future. But Harringay’s social work empire wouldn’t get its £100 million.
Liberals are often denounced for caring about criminals & saying that “society is to blame”. But society is to blame - it is just those most to blame are those who most involved in the “caring professions.” The correlationn between crime, particularly violent & senseless crime & lack of a male role model is undeniable & alone explains the rise in such crime despite thr fact that there are fewer teenage men, the ones who commit almost all such crime, around. There are minor things we could do such as encouraging male teachers & making it easier for men to be scoumasters & football coaches (rather than the precise opposite as qwe do now) but, because of its nature, the solution to this will take more than a generation which is all the more reason to start.
Also on John Redwood's blog
UPDATE - BBC radio today said that Panorama tonight will report that the police strongly asked that the baby be taken into care but the SS dept refused. This confirms my conclusion in the 2nd last paragraph.
Children need a father, boys in particular need one more than they need the mother.
Because it is politically incorrect to say this & because the empire building of social work departments requires ever more children to “care” for the actions of social workers have been, on balance, hugely destructive to society & the individual they “help”. This is how you get a £100 million budget as anybody who understands Public Choice Theory knows.
At all stages they support custody going to the mother & have often been actively involved in trying to persuade the mother to break up the family.
There is of course, far more work for them if the child is stuck with a useless mother, or in a “care home”.
One obvious answer is to encourage adoption & we can see that far from doing so social work departments actively prevent adoption because it weaken their power. It is otherwise impossible to explain how they could refuse to remove baby P while at the same time they are denying couples the right to adopt or even foster because they smoke, though there is no real evidence that passive smoking is any sort of problem at all let alone a serious one.
If, as soon as it was known the baby was being harmed, presumably 59 visits ago, the mother & boyfriend had been arrested for something relatively minor like GBH & the child removed to the care of either his father or adopted he would be happy & alive & even the mother & boyfriend would have a better future. But Harringay’s social work empire wouldn’t get its £100 million.
Liberals are often denounced for caring about criminals & saying that “society is to blame”. But society is to blame - it is just those most to blame are those who most involved in the “caring professions.” The correlationn between crime, particularly violent & senseless crime & lack of a male role model is undeniable & alone explains the rise in such crime despite thr fact that there are fewer teenage men, the ones who commit almost all such crime, around. There are minor things we could do such as encouraging male teachers & making it easier for men to be scoumasters & football coaches (rather than the precise opposite as qwe do now) but, because of its nature, the solution to this will take more than a generation which is all the more reason to start.
Also on John Redwood's blog
UPDATE - BBC radio today said that Panorama tonight will report that the police strongly asked that the baby be taken into care but the SS dept refused. This confirms my conclusion in the 2nd last paragraph.
