NO2ID

http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/4407 ... n's_system

EhealthInsider: Alarm raised over Integrated Children's System

15 Dec 2008

Contact point goes live in approx 2 weeks (Jan 2009).

A fortnight to go, and they only just realised that contact point will endanger thousands of children?

Firstly it's sheer scale, ie all 11 million children, is unthinkable. Who will input, monitor and man this database? Where is the qualified, knowledgeable skill base coming from? The Times are reporting local councils training Plumbers to act as child abuse detectors, we can only hazard a guess as to how many miscarriages of justice will occur.

When you stretch social workers this thinly, those who need protection will be missed. You can't expect social services to suddenly deal with 11 million extra children, without massive backing resources. Where are these resources, who's trained them?

Contact Point cannot shield those mothers on the run for DV, or hidden through witness protection programmes. It will expose them to ex partners, who will happily hunt them down. There is no legislation or protection from madmen.

Paedophiles would love access data on 11 million children.
Identifying children who are at risk, who's mothers live alone, and who have been abused, seems a dangerous cocktail for attracting paedophiles.
How many victims will be selected using Contact Point?

1 in 50 adults in the ENTIRE country already have access, and this is likely to increase dramatically as A&E and local police are fighting for access to it.

This is unthinkable. There is not a rational aspect to this entire scenario.

Parents will be less than happy when it goes wrong, and with plumbers leading from the front, it's going to spring more than the odd data leak!

As a Plumber I have two questions.

1/ why would a Plumber give up a £50 - £60 grand a year job to input information on a PC for aroun £15 grand pa?

2/ is there some reason the poster feels a Plumber could not be trained to do such a job well.

There is no slight against plumbers here Rick, but it remains a fact that Lincolnshire council (as a for instance) have taken the plumbers they use to provide such a service to those in council houses etc and given them very limited and basic training to spot child abuse and they have told the plumbers that they should always report what they see.

Just to show you how mad this is, such plumbers have been told that if they see a child wearing a longsleeved top in the summer it may be a sign of child abuse that they should report for further investigaion. Now they hopefully you can see how silly this is, but just in case its missed let me just raise the case of children with ginger/auburn hair who usually have quite fair & sensitive skin that will burn very easily (i myself have auburn hair & light/fair skin). Most of these children will choose to wear long sleeved tops for the majority of the 'summer' to protect their skin from sunburn (which is quite unpleasant). Under the current guidelines though, if a plumber calls at their house and sees them in a long sleeved top they must report it and the parents will be investigated by child services to see if there is any abuse. Are you seeing how mad this could get yet? and thats just one example, i'm sure there are many more that could come to the minds of others

Then there's the issue of liability.

A doctor recently failed to diagnose a broken back with Baby P.
If doctors get it wrong, well that's their job on the line.

Imagine you report a child for abuse, because they're covered in bruises, and it turns out it fell off a bike?
That child would be placed in a care home, and getting kids out of care homes is a nightmare.
So would the parent sue the plumber for negligence? Working outside of their remit, and their professional capacity?

I think they would. They'd sue the backside off you and your business, as you're not medical, you're not medically trained, and wrongly called in social services, breaking the bond between parent and child. Imagine that distress to the child, being ripped from your parents, on the say so of a plumber?

Any good parent would want massive compensation for their child being wrongly placed in a care home for say 6 months.

And I'm sure those parents would discredit you to every local & national newspaper.
And the papers would love it, plumber wrongly puts kid in care, for falling off bike.

Your local authority might ASK you to report, but I'm asking you NOT to report. Why not? You're in a legal minefield, and the LA won't back you, as you're not qualified as either a social worker or a doctor. Even social workers can't diagnose child abuse, doctors have to.

You'd always be known as the plumber that put kids in care.
The Kid Snatcher.

Think it over, before the LA puts you in that position.
You'd be up against MP's like John Hemming MP, and reporters like Camilla Cavendish of The Times, who's running a campaign against social workers and contact point operating in "secrecy". There's formidable opposition to "Secret Courts" and social workers methods.

Social workers are fired for getting it wrong, but that's their job. It's NOT your job. That's the weakness for you in court. A 1 day training course in child abuse, when doctors spend 7 YEARS in basic training, and you think you're competent after 1 days training?? Can you hear the barrister scorn for your 1 day training?

Remember, in court, a barrister will tear you to shreds.
And if you didn't see the abuse happening, think of how many times you got in a fight, fell out of a tree house, had a fight with your brother. The situation is impossible even for trained doctors, and no plumber is a trained doctor, with all respect. It's NOT your skill base.

So they're using plumbers as scapegoats. I'm asking you not to be their scapegoat.

The social workers are having some secrecy safeguards removed.

Here's some of the situations, that Contact Point will have to deal with... and MP's are taking the failings of the SS to the floor of the House of Commons


John Baron MP

I welcome the statement, but may I suggest to the Secretary of State that owing to the current level of secrecy, over-zealous social services departments are often not held to account and children are often taken away from their parents for spurious reasons? I have a constituent whose two boys, aged 14 and 16, were taken into care simply because they would not speak to their mother after an acrimonious break-up and wished to be with their father. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the case, if only so that he can see for himself how bad the system can be when cases such as this operate under a veil of secrecy?

*************************************************************

John Baron was talking about the two boys who some of us know who they are, the boys are a JFF case and in the last two weeks the SS have re-written the rule book to suit themselves. Open courts I believe would have prevented their recent diabolicle actions

The Full debate can be found here along with video.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... -16a.980.0



~~~

I ask you again.
Don't be their scapegoat - or it'll be your name appearing in Hansard, and on the floor of the house of commons.

Even asking plumbers to report child abuse, for long sleeves, is a blatant abuse of power. As they know that the "veil of Secrecy" is about to be lifted - due to social workers abusing their position.

If they make a mistake, fine, but do you want your face all over the newspapers?

But would liability lie with the individual that incorrectly reported abuse or with the authority that took action on the basis of that report? The report would have to be investigated further, other evidence obtained, and the case would be taken to court by the authorities before the chiltd would be subject to a care order. The individual responsible for the original report would have no authority to place the child in care and so I don't see how they could be liable for the child being incorrectly placed into care.

Would the parents know who the source of the report was given your subsequent comments concerning secrecy?

Don't get me wrong. As a parent, I am vehemently opposed to Contact Point. However, I am unclear whether your comments are based on solid legal foundations or supposition? Could you clarify?

When a case goes criminal, as in the case of Baby P, then criminal rules apply, and you have no protection from being named.

The barristers will go over the evidence that started the chain of events - and barristers are there only to do one thing - destroy your credibility, destroy your evidence, discredit you in any way that they can.

The trials were announced to open the Secret Courts to the Media. So the press will be in there, reporting, exactly was was said, and by whom.
The children can't be named. But few others, will have such protection, and that includes those who started the chain of events.

This is what The Times campaign has been about, bringing in justice, and transparency, to "lift the veil of secrecy".
Google for Camilla Cavendish and The Times campaign on Secret family courts.

For the first time, EVERY PARENT and EVERY CHILD in the UK will be affected. Contact Point is mandatory - there is no escape.

And it will go wrong, in fact, social work is going massively wrong already.
Asking non medical staff to spot and report child abuse, is just asking to make a bad situation worse.

The Government had no intention of opening secret courts, but after the ECHR is filled with British cases (Nicky Webster), the Council of Europe arrived in September to investigate why British mothers are fleeing the UK (Fran Lyon, Sam Thomas).

Now add to this mix, someone with 1 days training, to report "abuse".

These cases are going "big", national and Pan European.


The Sheer extent and scale of this is beyond your wildest imagination. There are masses of false positives and false negatives, mothers fleeing the country, forced adoptions, the Court of Appeal firing bullets at local authorities running sneak attacks to adopt children, 24 hours before the hearing to stop the adoption. The situation is like a tinderbox, volatile..


Okay about who to sue for triggering this.

1. Doctors. Difficult if not impossible. Judges as a policy, don't sue doctors, unless it's that one in a million case.
2. Social workers. There are only 2 departments in the UK which operate in total secrecy. They are MI5, and Social workers.
So social workers can't be sued for massive compensation. So who can be sued for compensation, to hurt the LA, that has the money?

Perhaps the unprotected plumber, that started this? Has Parliament passed laws to protect Plumbers? Answer = no, only social workers are protected.

3. Care homes? Yes and NO. LA pay insurance fees for children in care.
In the past 12 months, the insurance premium to place a child in care has gone up over 20 times (I think it's nearer 24 times, it's previous level - due to the amount of cases being brought against LA's).
So if your house insurance last year cost you £1000, this year it costs you a WHOOPING £24,000 a year! That's the kind of progress the activists are aiming for. Make insurance cost £40k this year, if you can!!

YES, the plumber, as a Local Authority employee, is a way to hit big compensation for the parents, if that makes sense. They want BIG INSURANCE compensation. You triggered this. Your employer (the LA) has the cash, we'll sue you, to get access to the the INSURANCE money for placing our child in care. Do I think they'd sue you personally too, yes, most definitely - as a warning to all others. I never said this fight wasn't anything but HOSTILE.

The groups are there to directly attack social services and secret courts. To achieve that, they'll destroy you, as a means to an end. (Sorry).

Contact Point, is where the public can get caught in the cross fire.
Secret courts will end. So will the secrecy of social workers. but innocent people could get brought down with it, if they aren't aware of the background.

Look at Baby P - Kemal wrote to Haringey via solicitors to say children were at risk. Haringey sacked the only decent social worker they had. Kemal knew how to play the system. Council staff, are going to end up being trawled through ECHR, because they did what the Council asked them to do. I'm saying watch your back. This is far more volatile than you realise.
Powerful forces are at work. Parliamentary & European agencies, and the Media. Powerful enough to force the Government to open the courts.

Contact Point is asking you to do the dirty work for the social workers.
Please don't. For the Children's sake, if not for your own.

Advice on care homes.
1. 400 children go "missing" from UK carehomes - even though they're "in care".
2. Half of all child trafficking is FROM our care homes.

20% of all care home girls either are pregnant at 16 years old, or have already given birth.

Basically, a care home is no place for a child. Especially for wearing long sleeves in summer.

Have I known mothers win £600,000 trials? YES. One recorded a social worker saying the child was so well mannered, there was no reason to adopt him, but the bonus would pay for her new kitchen. So a social worker was taped saying a forced adoption "bonus" would pay for her kitchen. And this evidence was presented to the Judge.

See the fight Contact Point brings you into? People will kill to protect their children. For heaven's sake, stay out of this fight.

Evidence.


Care Leavers' Association: Councils have lost track of 400 children

Posted: 10 December 2008 | Subscribe Online

writes Maria Ahmed

Councils have lost track of almost 400 young people in their care, figures published today reveal.

A survey of 172 authorities in England and Wales by the Care Leavers' Association found that up to 389 looked-after young people were currently missing.

Most of the children were from local authorities in south-east England and were predominately asylum seekers.

41 councils report missing children

Forty-one councils could not account for the whereabouts of looked-after children, and one authority reported losing 110 young people from care since 2000. A further six councils could not respond to the Freedom of Information Act survey because they did not keep a record of children missing from care.
Article continues below the advertisement

Victoria Hull, national development worker at the Care Leavers’ Association said: "It is worrying that hundreds of the UK’s most vulnerable young people seem to be disappearing into thin air. That some local authorities could not answer our questions because they did not keep track of the data is shocking. If those local authorities can’t even keep track of where their vulnerable young people are, how can they be relied upon to ensure their safety?"

Trafficking victims

Last year, research by children's charities revealed that more than half of children known or suspected to be victims of trafficking in three English regions had gone missing from local authority care.

The government rejected calls for an inquiry, but said it would strengthen councils' responsibilities towards children who went missing.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/12/10/110214/care-leavers-association-councils-have-lost-track-of-400-children.html

Locking this discussion as it is veering in the direction of a more general discussion of the role and efficacy of social services.