The following are examples:-
1:-Councils ARE rewarded for increasing adoption
figures (Kent £21million,Gloucester £12million,) as essential components
of public service agreements and these figures were until recently on
line;. We have retained copies! They are also rewarded with "beacon
status", and "stars" which usually have financial implications;
2:-It is true that the 40% increase in adoptions
demanded by Tony Blair was INTENDED to take children out of care. However,
the EFFECT of the demand has been to motivate social workers to
target very young children and babies whether "in care" or not. Statistics
(obtained from answers to parliamentary questions) on the Fassit site show
the increase in contested adoptions to be alarming
3:-Comparisons with Nazis who began in "the 30's"
by sterilizing the mentally handicapped can be reasonably compared with
social services systematically taking their children away for adoption .
4:-Drew does not simply" claim" to know of cases
where children have been taken because parents are poor as government
statistics confirm 440 recent cases of children taken because parents had
"low income" and even Felicity Collier admitted this on radio and declared
herself "perplexed"
5:-It is not dangerous to advise parents how to
stop social workers bursting into the house often at night uninvited, and
it is absurd for Clair Pyper to suggest that this type of visit is for
purposes of support!
6:-Clair Pyper claims that "emotional harm" is just
as damaging as physical harm which can be seen and proved and this is also
absurd; Parents just cannot defend themselves against highly paid self
styled "experts" who say their children are "at risk of emotional harm"
This concept is so much a matter of opinion and so little concerned with
facts that the whole notion unknown on the continent) should be scrapped.
7:-Nobody could deny Drew's claim that children
under interim care orders were being advertised "like dogs" in magazines
and on line with photos ,birth dates , first names, and character
descriptions as anyone can verify this for themselves. What David Batty
left out however was the obvious conclusion that the secrecy in the family
courts is not imposed to hide the identity of these children that the
Councils so blatantly advertise, but rather to PREVENT aggrieved parents
who have had their children taken from going to the press or in any way
complaining publicly with details about what happened in the court.
8:-David Batty says that Drew "claims" that
adoption is a big money industry as though he does not believe it; The
government's own statistics admit that lawyers make an average £70,000 a
case, and adoption agencies charge councils around £18,000 per placement,
whilst the fosterers who take the children pending adoption proceedings
are paid in Slough for example £400 per week per child !!
9:-Claire Pyper takes exception because the FASSIT
site has drawn public attention to the fact that many physically abused
and damaged children are left to die whilst social workers go for easier
targets in the form of mothers who are poor or have low IQs. She cannot
really deny that this is so as the facts are continually in the public
domain.
10:-The most interesting omission from the article
is that maybe the reason that the "Guardian" is the only newspaper to
robustly defend the Social Services and their adoption policies has
something to do with the fact that every week the paper benefits from
pages and pages of expensive advertisements placed there by
,,,,,,,,,,Social Services gain it seems that policies are a question
of cash !!
Yours
sincerely,
Thank you
for reading this.
Please read...
'Upping the anti' and Response
Candidate for a Social Worker
Social Services and the Parents Golden Rules
Social Services Myths and Realities
