Wednesday, November 14, 2012
16,000 Chiildren Kidnapped By Scottish State
Latest ThinkScotland article. Please put any comments there.
-------------------------------
I wrote recently comparing Jimmy Savile, largely favourably, with the professionals of the "child care industry" & BBC journalists generally.
This week BBC Scotland's Sunday Politics did a piece about taking more children into social work "care". They were, naturally, all in favour of more of it. The "balanced" BBC did a supportive video report folowed by 3 talking heads - 2 workers in the "caring" industry and BBC interviewer Isabel Fraser in the normal supportive Beeboid manner.
The point being sold was that the old idea of taking kids into custody only when some ill treatment is found, or suggested, is now outdated. In our modern society social workers should be grabbing them when they find, or claim to find "neglect".
Neglect being defined as;
"Neglect is notoriously difficult to define as there are no clear, cross-cultural standards for desirable or minimally adequate child rearing practices......the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development. .....neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter); protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger; ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-givers); or ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment. It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child's basic emotional needs.....the failure of a person responsible for a child’s care and upbringing to safeguard the child’s emotional and physical health and general well-being"
Most of this is subjective, unprovable ... and undisprovable. Particularly when it goes through "special" non-courts where justice not only need not be seen to be done but regularly bans any reporting.
When "professional carers" can and do grab a kid purely because his mother has political views the "carer" disapproves of (ie supporting the EDL) can any parents can be sure their chidren are safe?
One point which emerged from the programme is that in Scotland the number of children in "care" is over 16,000, but is over 89,000 in the UK as a whole. This is 18% for a country that makes up 8% of the population. So your child is 2.5 times more likely to be taken from you by our government. Does anybody think Scots care 2.5 times less for their children. I don't but the only other answer is that our bureaucracy are 2.5 times more aggressive.
Numbers of children seized are rising - is this because there is more neglect, lack of supervision and absolute poverty than there was a generation or 2 ago. I don't but the only other answer is that our empire building bureaucracy are more aggressive than they used to be.
I quoted Dr Pournelle last time "the purpose of government programmes is to pay government employees and their friends, the nominal purpose is secondary, at best". This is very much what researchers in Public Choice Theory have found across the board. The nominal purpose of "professional caring" for children is caring for children but that makes the real purpose to provide employment, promotion & underlings to the "carers". This helps explain how children like baby Peter, whose parents were violent drug addicts don't get visited whereas ordinary inoffensive people do - and get outrageously bullied by them.
As a general rule of thumb government departments usually spend about £100,000 per year per employee. I suspect child care costs will actually be higher than that, since there are employees in addition to that and because there is an attitude of heavy spending . £300 taxi fare to take a child to the room next to a court, then not allowed to speak; lots of expensive lawyers; and individuals, sometimes without any qualifications, make up to £500,000 a year for producing reports, 2/3rds of them "poor" or worse, which support the "carers who paid for them. All the stuff Booker has been reporting but the rest of the media censor. That would make the cost of this "care" well over £9 bn a year - for government activity which, rather than helping, ruins lives, bringing those who really are "the most vulnerable in society" into the hands of abusers.
Now who could want something like that. Well the MPs of the education select committee who just demanded more chidren be put in such homes for one and the BBC, who break their own legal duty of balance to ensure only the "professional carer" view is reported for another.
-------------------------------
I wrote recently comparing Jimmy Savile, largely favourably, with the professionals of the "child care industry" & BBC journalists generally.
This week BBC Scotland's Sunday Politics did a piece about taking more children into social work "care". They were, naturally, all in favour of more of it. The "balanced" BBC did a supportive video report folowed by 3 talking heads - 2 workers in the "caring" industry and BBC interviewer Isabel Fraser in the normal supportive Beeboid manner.
The point being sold was that the old idea of taking kids into custody only when some ill treatment is found, or suggested, is now outdated. In our modern society social workers should be grabbing them when they find, or claim to find "neglect".
Neglect being defined as;
"Neglect is notoriously difficult to define as there are no clear, cross-cultural standards for desirable or minimally adequate child rearing practices......the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development. .....neglect may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter); protect a child from physical and emotional harm or danger; ensure adequate supervision (including the use of inadequate care-givers); or ensure access to appropriate medical care or treatment. It may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness to, a child's basic emotional needs.....the failure of a person responsible for a child’s care and upbringing to safeguard the child’s emotional and physical health and general well-being"
Most of this is subjective, unprovable ... and undisprovable. Particularly when it goes through "special" non-courts where justice not only need not be seen to be done but regularly bans any reporting.
When "professional carers" can and do grab a kid purely because his mother has political views the "carer" disapproves of (ie supporting the EDL) can any parents can be sure their chidren are safe?
One point which emerged from the programme is that in Scotland the number of children in "care" is over 16,000, but is over 89,000 in the UK as a whole. This is 18% for a country that makes up 8% of the population. So your child is 2.5 times more likely to be taken from you by our government. Does anybody think Scots care 2.5 times less for their children. I don't but the only other answer is that our bureaucracy are 2.5 times more aggressive.
Numbers of children seized are rising - is this because there is more neglect, lack of supervision and absolute poverty than there was a generation or 2 ago. I don't but the only other answer is that our empire building bureaucracy are more aggressive than they used to be.
I quoted Dr Pournelle last time "the purpose of government programmes is to pay government employees and their friends, the nominal purpose is secondary, at best". This is very much what researchers in Public Choice Theory have found across the board. The nominal purpose of "professional caring" for children is caring for children but that makes the real purpose to provide employment, promotion & underlings to the "carers". This helps explain how children like baby Peter, whose parents were violent drug addicts don't get visited whereas ordinary inoffensive people do - and get outrageously bullied by them.
As a general rule of thumb government departments usually spend about £100,000 per year per employee. I suspect child care costs will actually be higher than that, since there are employees in addition to that and because there is an attitude of heavy spending . £300 taxi fare to take a child to the room next to a court, then not allowed to speak; lots of expensive lawyers; and individuals, sometimes without any qualifications, make up to £500,000 a year for producing reports, 2/3rds of them "poor" or worse, which support the "carers who paid for them. All the stuff Booker has been reporting but the rest of the media censor. That would make the cost of this "care" well over £9 bn a year - for government activity which, rather than helping, ruins lives, bringing those who really are "the most vulnerable in society" into the hands of abusers.
Now who could want something like that. Well the MPs of the education select committee who just demanded more chidren be put in such homes for one and the BBC, who break their own legal duty of balance to ensure only the "professional carer" view is reported for another.
Labels: Rise of modern fascism, Scottish politics, ThinkScotland
