http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17274848
Disgusting! What's happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' in this country?
Jeff
Council bans daughter contact over child images
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Have a watch of these three programs - made me understand social workers roles and the very tough decisions they have to make a lot better:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bskrq/episodes/guide
I am sure we aren't getting all the facts of the case in the BBC article and I would have the trust in the professionals that made the decision as it isn't just a simple matter of saying you can't see your child alone. They have to put a case together.
Yes errors are made and this could well be one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bskrq/episodes/guide
I am sure we aren't getting all the facts of the case in the BBC article and I would have the trust in the professionals that made the decision as it isn't just a simple matter of saying you can't see your child alone. They have to put a case together.
Yes errors are made and this could well be one.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
You really need to stop believing the Daily Mail and BBc editorials, Jeff. My mates girlfriend's a social services lawyer and I can assure you none of these decisions are taken lightly especially these days when personal claims lawyers are queuing up to take advantage of any mistakes.
Social services is one of the few services they're not cutting back for fear of having the next Baby P on their books.
"council statement said: "The council's social care team considers that, on the information it presently has about this case, it is a proportionate response to request that Mr Robinson should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.
"The council will keep the case under review but cannot comment further as this is an on-going investigation." "
Social services is one of the few services they're not cutting back for fear of having the next Baby P on their books.
"council statement said: "The council's social care team considers that, on the information it presently has about this case, it is a proportionate response to request that Mr Robinson should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.
"The council will keep the case under review but cannot comment further as this is an on-going investigation." "
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
ive got personal and bitter experience of social workers messing up,losing files,losing evidence, mis representing themselves to the court and bare faced lying.
i dont know this case non of us do,but i can say with 100% certainty that in a case i was sadly involved in they fcuked up big style, and that they were complacent, not client focused, and looking after themselves only. They had no regard for the copnsequences of their mistakes and didnt even apologies or admit to them.
disgraceful impact on my, my families and my partners family.
personally and till i die i wont trust them further than i can throw a bag of sheet in their faces.
good day
i dont know this case non of us do,but i can say with 100% certainty that in a case i was sadly involved in they fcuked up big style, and that they were complacent, not client focused, and looking after themselves only. They had no regard for the copnsequences of their mistakes and didnt even apologies or admit to them.
disgraceful impact on my, my families and my partners family.
personally and till i die i wont trust them further than i can throw a bag of sheet in their faces.
good day
It's interesting that you mention both those sources in the same sentence, given that they come from very different parts of the political spectrum! 
I'm sure many social workers are hard working people who only want the fairest outcome possible. But there will be some who, consciously or unconsciously, are mainly motivated by a desire to further their careers. And one way to do that is to act in accordance with politically correct Guardian values. In this case, someone may have thought:
'I want to be seen to be on the side of the child, and to take no chances with their welfare. It's a touchy-feely, liberal sentiment, so it will make me look good. And if this guy does turn out to be guilty of downloading illegal material, then no-one can accuse us, a la Baby P, of failing in our duty to protect children. So the fact that there's not a shred of credible evidence that this guy's guilty of anything is neither here nor there. There are bigger considerations at play.'
And if you think that the British civil service wouldn't act that way, just speak to any teacher who's been accused of assaulting a child. They basically have to prove their innocence, which is rather difficult! My housemate Ian could tell you about this, as he left teaching following an incident where he had to defend himself when a burly 16 year old lout who threw a chair at his head!
Or take Operation Ore, where stupid decision making by police lead to people committing suicide and families being torn up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore. Many of the people arrested were merely victims of credit card fraud, although the police decided not to tell them that might be the case. Why tell someone you have evidence that makes it impossible to prove their guilt, when they might be about to confess?
Jeff
I'm sure many social workers are hard working people who only want the fairest outcome possible. But there will be some who, consciously or unconsciously, are mainly motivated by a desire to further their careers. And one way to do that is to act in accordance with politically correct Guardian values. In this case, someone may have thought:
'I want to be seen to be on the side of the child, and to take no chances with their welfare. It's a touchy-feely, liberal sentiment, so it will make me look good. And if this guy does turn out to be guilty of downloading illegal material, then no-one can accuse us, a la Baby P, of failing in our duty to protect children. So the fact that there's not a shred of credible evidence that this guy's guilty of anything is neither here nor there. There are bigger considerations at play.'
And if you think that the British civil service wouldn't act that way, just speak to any teacher who's been accused of assaulting a child. They basically have to prove their innocence, which is rather difficult! My housemate Ian could tell you about this, as he left teaching following an incident where he had to defend himself when a burly 16 year old lout who threw a chair at his head!
Or take Operation Ore, where stupid decision making by police lead to people committing suicide and families being torn up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore. Many of the people arrested were merely victims of credit card fraud, although the police decided not to tell them that might be the case. Why tell someone you have evidence that makes it impossible to prove their guilt, when they might be about to confess?
Jeff
spreadbetting wrote:You really need to stop believing the Daily Mail and BBc editorials, Jeff.
-
mister man
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
mister man wrote:ive got personal and bitter experience of social workers messing up,losing files,losing evidence, mis representing themselves to the court and bare faced lying.
i dont know this case non of us do,but i can say with 100% certainty that in a case i was sadly involved in they fcuked up big style, and that they were complacent, not client focused, and looking after themselves only. They had no regard for the copnsequences of their mistakes and didnt even apologies or admit to them.
disgraceful impact on my, my families and my partners family.
personally and till i die i wont trust them further than i can throw a bag of sheet in their faces.
good day
bump
