Petition answered with Spin and Sophism
 By Charles Pragnell May 06, 2008 |
||
| Firstly may I thank all of those people who took the time and trouble to
sign the Petition which I submitted to the UK government last year and
which was published on this website. As a reminder, these were the
contents: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Appoint a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Child Protection Services." Details of Petition: "There are thousands of children who suffer serious abuse and even death whilst under the care and supervision of child protection agencies. There are conversely many thousands of children and families who are falsely accused of child abuse and are subjected to unwarranted child protection investigations which often devastate their lives. Some parents are even wrongfully imprisoned. Often the errors affect groups of children and their families e.g. Cleveland, the Orkneys, etc. Such devastation has often been caused by the use of scientifically fraudulent theories by child protection workers and associated professionals. E.g. Satanic Ritual Abuse, Repressed Memory Syndrome, FII, SBS. There can be little argument that the child protection system and the associated legal system are deeply-flawed, erratic, and dysfunctional and are the cause of many lives of children and parents being destroyed by a system supposedly appointed to protect them and to help them maintain their unity. A Royal Commission is urgently needed to investigate the current system and to recommend desperately needed reforms to the system." In the Children's Plan, published in December 2007, we set out our ambition to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up. (Child protection in other parts of the UK is the responsibility of the Devolved Administrations). The system for safeguarding children from harm, and in particular from child abuse and neglect, is a key element in that vision, and keeping children safe is a top priority for the Government.” And the U.K. government’s reply is : Start “Our reforms to children's services and to child protection services in particular have been informed by a number of independent reviews, including Lord Laming's Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report in 2003, the Bichard Inquiry Report in 2004, and the first two joint Chief Inspectors' Reports on Safeguarding Children, published in 2002 and 2005, which bring together the findings of the different Inspectorates. Previous reviews and inquiries, including that into child abuse in Cleveland in the 1980s, have also driven improvements to the framework for child protection. To strengthen the system we have created children's services departments in local authorities to bring together key responsibilities; joined up services more generally through a duty to co-operate and the requirement for a single Children and Young People's Plan in each local area; created statutory Local Safeguarding Children Boards to co-ordinate what the key organisations do to safeguard children and to ensure that they are working effectively together; put in place systems to improve information sharing and information management relating to children; worked to improve the assessment of children's needs and the ability of those who work with children to respond effectively when they have concerns about a child's welfare; and put in place new systems to review all child deaths. We have recently introduced a new Public Service Agreement to improve children and young people's safety, which provides a focus at national level for our work on safeguarding children. We are clear that government does not bring up children - parents do - and that therefore we need to back parents and families. Our key guidance to services, "Working Together to Safeguard Children", is clear that only in exceptional cases should there be compulsory intervention in family life - for example, where this is necessary to safeguard a child from significant harm. And that such intervention should - provided this is consistent with the safety and welfare of the child - support families in making their own plans for the welfare and protection of their children. The system is subject to continuing inspection and to research including the Government's own safeguarding children research initiative. We will continue to examine and review the operation of the child protection system, but do not believe that a Royal Commission of Inquiry is required.” End This reply is very much as I expected from this government and I could probably have written it myself at the time of submitting the Petition knowing how this government operates. So why did I bother to submit it would be a reasonable question to ask. The answer is that there was just a slight glimmer of hope that someone, somewhere in this government might just care a little that children and families throughout the U.K. were being devastated and destroyed by a system which is ostensibly there to protect them, and be willing to investigate these matters further. The response is however full of spin and sophism and has clearly been prepared by civil servants who would never of course admit their faults or the flaws in the system to government Ministers. There is no attempt to address the issues of false accusations of child abuse, no attempt to address the issue of erratic and questionable decisions and actions by social workers, no attempt to address the issue of fraudulent theories of child abuse, or the destructive effects they have had on children and their families. Nor why, if the system has been reformed so effectively in the way they claim, that there has been such widespread criticism of child protection services in recent years and months by Judges in Criminal Courts and in Family proceedings, by the media, and why parents have formed so many and diverse campaigning and protest groups against the child protection system. The Sally Clark and Angela Cannings cases exposed many of those flaws and most recently Judges have been critical of social workers unlawfully removing children and of doctors using techniques for detecting child sexual abuse which were found to be flawed over 20 years ago. They don’t address any of these issues in the Petition but merely state what changes they have made (as there have been on multiple times in the past 40 years and have largely served only to make the system worse for the hapless victims). Note there is no mention in any of the Reports quoted of having taken evidence from parents and children who have suffered from the iniquities and injustices of the child protection system. Only reports of government officials talking to government officials with a mindset of how little can we disclose of what we did wrong and how quickly can we dispose of the issue without changing, and of course they don’t admit to their errors and flawed judgements, although in the Climbie’ Inquiry they could not avoid those errors becoming very apparent. It is because they cannot admit error or flaws in the system that they cannot learn and change. There are still some doctors and social workers who steadfastly believe they were right in such instances as Cleveland, the Orkneys, Nottingham etc. etc. despite being publicly and judicially shown to be wrong. Their statements that “Lessons have been learnt” from such incidents and horrors for the children and families concerned has only been empty rhetoric to divert and distract attention from themselves and to continue unchanged in their activities. Another favourite saying at such times is, “we have changed our systems”. Yes they have but not in terms of improvement for children and families but to protect the agencies from risk of exposure for future failings and to become even more punitive and bureaucratic. No amount of new regulations or guidance or re-training for those involved will effect any significant changes – only changes in attitude of those involved or their redeployment and replacement will bring about the urgently necessary improvements and changes. Only when they can listen to the voices of the children and their families who have suffered so devastatingly at the hands of the child protection system and to take seriously what they have to say, will they even begin to know what the problems and issues are. But that day is, I fear, a long way off. The reply to this Petition confirms yet again, if any were needed, that this government and its civil servants are poised on a pinnacle of hubris and arrogance, which accepts only complementary comment and any criticism is entirely beyond their comprehension and recognition. By Charles Pragnell May 06, 2008 Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate.. Back |
||
