Click to get your own widget

Sunday, September 15, 2013

"Caring Professions" Stealing Children - Probably The Most Obscene Political Parasitism We Have & One Of The More Expensive

   H/T Tim Worstall for leading me to this:

"Education Secretary says officialdom and red tape have prevented the authorities from stepping in to protect children and have helped grooming rings to operate.

He also condemns social services departments across the country for the “indefensible” practice of “decanting” problem children to far-flung homes, away from friends and family, and routinely located in some of the country’s worst crime hot spots. And he voices dismay at how children’s homes have failed to provide basic protection while costing taxpayers on average six and a half times
as much to care for a single child as it would cost to send them to Eton.

Mr Gove makes the comments, in an article for The Daily Telegraph, as his department publishes the most comprehensive information ever compiled about children’s homes in England.

The report, seen by The Daily Telegraph, exposes how councils in England are spending more than a £1 billion a year to care for fewer than 4,900 children. It calculates that councils now spend an average of £4,000 a week — or £208,000 a year — to place one child in a home, several times what it could cost to educate them at some of Britain’s top public schools.

In some cases the total amount spent is running at several times that level. According to the figures, one council — Bexley in Kent — spent more than £58,000 a week per child — £3 million each — on specialist privately run homes last year."

   From Michael Gove which says a lot about how much power ministers actually have, unless they are willing to go to the wall.

   Clearly our "social services" are out of control, some, like Bexley, further out than others.

   I have previously discussed this as a particularly obscene example of Pournelle's rule that "the purpose of government spending is to pay government employees and their friends, the nominal purpose is, at best, secondary".

    Relatively few children are taken seized by "professional carers" because they are being harmed. Indeed when they are really being harmed, overwhelmingly by a new, stupid and violent, boyfriend of the mother, who is acting on the same evolutionary drive that causes a lion to kill the cubs of its mate when they aren't his, because it increases the chances of his cubs replacing them. For some reason "professional carers" tend to steer clear of violent boyfriend situations and much prefer stealing children from law abiding, decent people.

     The fact that our "social work" class insists that in virtually all circumstances they prevent the real father looking after Baby P and his ilk is why this obscenity is repeated so often. The solution is obvious.

     What normally happens is that they are said to be "at risk", a classification that needs no actual evidence beyond the gestapo/social worker saying so (or occasionally an opinion from an "expert" who has been paid £25K for the opinion without having to go to the inconvenience of seeing the kid. In a number of cases the "at risk" definition has been proven not only corrupt but an entirely political charge made against UKIP, EDL or members of with unapproved political opinions - how long till somebody who doesn't approve of redefining marriage or total power to social workers is thus punished. Then they disappear into the "care" system, thereby ensuring continued employment and empire building by the "carers" and a life of abuse for the victim/care charge.

    Nobody seriously disputes that sexual abuse is not merely common but endemic within the "care" system and, as with the police who didn't investigate the Rochdale case because it was "a lifestyle choice" by the victims, this is nodded at.

   Nor is there any dispute that, by almost any definition of human failure - imprisonment, homelessness, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, illiteracy, unemployment, failure of their own children - those who grow up in "care" are deeply damaged.

   All of that not only justifies but demands that any civilised society get rid of these obscene "caring" parasites. A society that puts children in harm's way is not a society to be proud of.

    Even if the real parents aren't perfect - a certainty since who is - all of history shows they will be more caring of their own kids than those with no stake.

   I suggest:

A - All these cases should be investigated and in any circumstances where the kids want to go home (they must be free to say so not browbeaten by the presence of their tormentors)

B - In any case where a child has been taken into "care" officiously as an abusive act of overgovernment, the "carers" involved and the immediate boss who instructed them, should be fired, and never again be eligible for state employment. Ditto any "expert" paid to testify in support of grabbing children, when their report turns out to be false. there is also a case for suing such scum for fees, pay and indeed the harm they did.

C - From now on there should be an explicit duty of whistleblowing, affecting all "social workers" and police, that if they know, or are in a situation where "a reasonable person" (common legal phrasing) would know, of abuse, unjustified seizure of children or "expert" collusion, they have a duty to go public and if they don't are then also inelegibale for future state employment.

   My guess is that this would reduce child social work departments by about 90% while leaving in place almost everybody who had a positive role.

   The other point here is the amount of money we are paying for this obscenity.

   Gove says £208,000 a year. However the number in care is far greater than that.

    It is 91,000 in the UK in 2012 (incidentally 89,000 when I previously reported so things are getting worse).

    That comes to £18.93 billion, one sixth of our entire national governmental deficit.

     Bear in mind that we can probably sustain a deficit of about £50 bn without increasing the national debt as a proportion of gdp.

     This is on the assumption that all 91,000 are being treated the same and on the more questionable assumption that all the costs of child departments of social workers are being counted. Thus the figure may not be exact but it is unlikely to be overcounted.

Scottish case:

"31 July 2012 there were 16,248  children looked after by local authorities, an increase of less than one per cent since 31 July 2011.  The number of children looked after has increased every year since 2001"

    That is 18% of the UK total, with 8.5% of total population (or taking England, NI and Wales alone at 74,752 - 22% in a population of 9.1% the size.

    It is, unfortunately, the experience that our government "services" tend to cost 25% more than the UK average (apparently due to "the freight" costs in the Highlands ;-) ).

   In which case the assumed cost in Scotland should be {16,248 X 204,000 X 1.25} £4,143 million.

   Roughly 1/8 of our total budget for something which not only does not add one iota to human happiness but adds a massive amount to the total of human misery.

   I can also call this #26 of my 24 point programme out of recession

   And, of  course, not only is this censored from our state broadcasting propagandists but they are actively assisting the parasites in extending their reach.

    This is the BBC pushing for these "carers" to keep their meal tickets up till age 26. Naturally the BBC censor any slightest hint anybody might not like that. And of the need to increase numbers taken, again, naturally with any disagreement censored.

Labels: , , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.