JUST JUSTICE-ITS THAT SIMPLE!!!

Back in the dark ages - where families were left to fend for themselves, there was much wrong in society. There was no NHS, disability benefits, equal rights etc. Human rights extended to whether you were titled or not. Old age required dependence on your family and very few famlies lived any distance from eachother.

When the 'welfare state' was set up it was with a 'noble notion' that a country could only judge itself on/by the way it treated its most vulnerable members (eldery, infirmed, sick and young). An amazing idea was put forward that did not exist anywhere in the world - that the state would step in where families were unable to care for their own kin.

It started with such things as the Public Assistance Act and the NHS - the NHS was healthcare free at the point of delivery and Public/National Assistance set the threshold for when the state was obligated to provide services or funding for vulnerable individuals.

Before 'state' support many poor had to rely on Charities and in those days it is quite well known that charitable work was done by middle class ladies who were not encouraged to undertake 'real work' (men's work). Charities developed and the power of those working or running these charities was immense - if you did not abide by their rules and regulations then you faced certain doom (starvation, eviction, homelessness etc). Added to this was the moral climate that single motherhood was against god and therefore unacceptable. Unmarried mothers who were not shielded by their family or where a relative or friend would not take the child as their own were forced either to live a life seperated from their family, often working in the worst jobs (including prostitution) and never having the prospect of marriage, or giving the baby up! Remember this is pre-abortion days.

I think we can all now see where the 'power lust' began. Charities were able to control every aspect of an indivdiual's life, even who they spoke to or whether they were allowed to go to the pub... (to be continued)
       
Part 2.

As women began to win rights - including having careers, interest was focussed on the role of 'supportive services'. Even in the very beginning government saw a good opportunity to 'control' the masses. Social work started to develop not as a solution for social problems but more as a very underhanded and covert 'police force'.

In its very beginnings social work was based on the principle of 'best interest' - now this is where someone who 'thinks' they know best what is right for another person imposes their view (sound familiar). Interestingly child protection (or what existed of it) was handed over to the NSPCC - THE ONLY ORGANISATION THAT WAS LICENSED, BY ROYAL PREROGATIVE TO ENTER A PREMISES AND REMOVE A CHILD WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

As social work began to grow there was a need to organise this 'work force' and thus sprang the SSD. I suppose we are really post war now before the SSD's we recognise. As social work became more 'professionalised' (ie I'm not just a nosey bint who thinks they know better than you - but I am a professional nosey bint who thinks they know better than you) Legislation began to be passed not to regulate the SSD's but to regulate their clients.

The stigma of single parenthood stayed and children were removed in their droves to save them from the shame of being without a father. Children's homes sprang up (local authority) to match the already huge charity (including church) run homes. Incrreasingly the governement was starting to interfere with every aspect of private life and thus sprung even more powers to the SSD's. Especially where children were concerned the LA were given unasailable power - if we think we have it rough talk to a single parent from the 50's, 60's and early 70's.

Government was powerless to resist or regulate the new tide of sexual liberation hearlded by birth control and political hysteria raged that society would descend into chaos with so many children being born out of wedlock. Abortion was legalised, one option, and SSD's were allowed to develop their own criteria for removing children that had no relation to any form of abuse, hasn't changed much then - apart from they have to lie now.

During the 70's and 80's social work was accepted into mainstream accademia as part of social sciences (sociology and the like) and a new breed of 'professional' was being borne, those that thought because they had a piece of paper this mattered more than common sense or life experience. This new breed fast infiltrated the ranks of the higher eschelon. Without any real accademics in the departments and without any vestage of proper research or accountability the power of these departments grew - in line with their budget. The rule of thumb for politics has always been that the department with the biggest budget calls the shots.

The Children Act was a response to outcrys at the apparent madness (even then) of SSD's removing children - a particular documentary (was it Kathy, I think it was) made a real impact (remember only 3 TV channels, highest viewing figures and docudrama was a whole new concept). The Children Act really WAS a fine piece of legislation - outlining the obligations of SSD's to try and keep families together. No longer a stigma to be a single mother the government was fearful that a high percentage of the 'poor' poupulation was being 'cared for' in LA and other homes.

Massive revolt, of course, came after various failures of SSD's to protect children - Marie Kettle is a very good case in point, and the uncovering of widespread abuse in homes (physical being higher than sexual abuse). The tide was beginning to turn. Mass education meant that people were not so easily fobbed off and some started to ruck against the 'power' of SSD's.

The trouble was that these departments were staffed by trenchent activists from the 'old school' that truly believed a title such as social worker actually meant you knew better than anyone else!

Toward the end of the 80's Thatcher (some loved, some hated) decided that too much public money was being spent on social services and long stay residential care (for mentally ill as well). By accident and without any altruistic purpose she set about axing all of these 'wastes of public funding'.

Suddenly social services had to 'justify' its very existance and the most powerful way of doing that was to ensure that politicians (at least) believed there to be rampant abuse in the country and that without SSD's this would go unchecked. SSD's focussed down on abuse and started to 'look' for it. Unfortunately, knowledge of abuse (such as in a case being investigated by the police) doesn't justify their involvement - no social services needed to find 'new' and 'hidden' abuse so that they could save the day.
   

    
Part 3

The media, now increasing in diversity and lacking in consistency played a vital role in communicating 'fear' to the general public - those whose taxes were being used to fund SSD's.

Although the media did cover big cases of incompetence they also regularly featured stories of the abused or the latest scandals. Whilst titilating the public it also planted the inscidious seed of 'moral panic'. Peadophiles were everywhere - YOUR CHILD IS NOT SAFE! That was the messaage and it worked.

For some inexplicable reason the police were not entursted with child protection co-ordination. Social workers were able to usurp this power on the basis of their greater knowledge. Opinion mattered more than fact in the drama of abuse. To be honest 'morally' the decision was taken that opinion mattered more than freedom and more than evidence.

Thus the police were not asked or required to develop strong cp teams and the teams that existed relied upon the testimony of the social worker. Social work was not finished, it had (as I have alluded to in other threads) developed a 'circular theory' (that is one that doubles back on itself, this was:

"Any child alleging abuse must be believed...
Any child denying abuse - where a social worker's opinion was that it had occurred - could not be believed."

Psychobable, twaddle and trash was talked by the accademics who 'borrowed' research from other disciplines (notably psychology) where they argued there were certain 'signs' of abuse. However, psychology has a basic RULE OR LAW - "correlation does not indicate causality". What this means is that because X and Y happen together a lot you cannot argue that X causes Y or Y causes X.

Funny example (not real) "dad goes to get a paper every night. He stays out till 10 and when he comes home he has a red face, laughs and falls all over the place". Okay so on the FACTS given someone researching this could say - getting a paper causes fathers to act in this way. We are more sensible and know that dad has been down the pub! But the pub isn't part of the research - only the paper is. Maybe dad didn't say about the pub, maybe he lied about being down the publ. So in this way psychologists say whilst getting a paper and dad comng home in a state happen together that is all we can say - we can't say buying a paper MAKES dad act this way.

Now because social workers and accademics are sloppy on their actual theory - espcially if they haven't studied anything else, then they encourage the misuse of information. It actually suits their purpose. Using bits and pieces of research they were able to cobble together whole rafts of 'key indicators' of abuse and because they are so 'thick' they couldn't conceive that they were ever wrong - how could they be their reserach said they were not.

So a new set of rules appeared for investigations:

"If an adult denies they have abused their child they are lying, therefore we need to take the chldren to protect them;

If an adult admits they have abused a child then we need to take the chld to protect them."

Accademic theory has moved on (as you can read in my other thread) BUT the people haven't... Social services are still determined to prove that they are needed and whilst they are able to do this then nothing will develop instead of
them. The biggest weapon they command is fear.

The powers, real and imagined of a social worker.

       Involve other agencies e.g. Police, Probation, Education and health.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Invoke a child protection conference if in agreement with team manager                              

Apply to have your movement curtailed to prevent yourself from possibly moving across a county border (this is in direct contravention of the EU's Freedom of Movement Article)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Conduct secret meetings to formulate plans without your knowledge or consent with other agencies (However since the case Re:L 2002 this has been illegal to do so if the parent asks to be included, re:L 2002 empowers parents to be treated as a professional agency and given the same accordance of stature)                                                                                                                                                                                                                Invoke Court Proceedings if in agreement with Team manager and Legal Dept.

Invoke a RIPA session which is under the terms of the RIPA/Office of Surveillance Commissioner's which means they have the same covert intrusion powers and protection from arrest as does the police and security services. To shorten it down, they can apply for a licence to bug your communications, watch you covertly and enter your premises and others to implant bugs, search files and take photos.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Apply for an Emergency Protection Order via the Magistrates and this can be Ex Parte which means heard in secret without your knowledge.                                                        

Apply to the police to apply a Police Safety Order to which the police officer must assess the immediate situation and decide to place the child in a defined place of safety.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

As from when Hodges quasi Police State Bill comes in called Every Child matters, social services will have executive power within the branches of health, police, education and any person of these that fails to cooperate will be facing some stiff penalties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Also from the above, the hierarchy of schools will be under the control of social services who devolves to headteachers, education staff will be lawfully bound to answer directives given to them by social services.

• Use school teachers as extensions of themselves to maybe gain a disclosure from a child.
  
• Use the police to harass parents who are not complying with their wishes.
  
• Allow details of a sensitive nature to filter out into the community to effect citizen policing (e.g. A social services department that was convinced without evidence that a father who was thrown out by them of his home, ensured he stayed away by pasting posters on bus shelters warning locals of this person and to call the police if he was seen)
  
• Apply pressure on the wife to evict the husband and in return allow her to retain the children unmolested.
  
• Influence courts through their position, family court judges seem to be very tame towards social workers, maybe through the breeding of familiarity in these circles, however, social workers do not have to present evidence to back their claims just present the case with a likelihood however remote of possible abuse to a child, this means that every child in this country could at some stage suffer abuse and a likelihood is a percentage of probabilities and this means again that any child in the UK could be placed in this situation so therefore it is a scenario where social services have absolute power.
• Falsify, delete or counterfeit records, we at Unity Injustice asked an Inspector Riddick of Greater Manchester Police to criminally charge a social worker that had forged signatures which aided illegally a childs adoption, not only has this worker failed to be charged with a very serious crime of fraud, he is still in full employ of the social work department without any disciplinary procedures we know of.

To emphasise their position in court or to the child protection conference, social workers DO NOT have to evidence themselves, they do not at any stage need to provide evidence unless directed by a judge. It has been the occasion within the child protection conference where the parent has had stacks of evidence proving
their innocence yet it has been totally ignored in favour of the flimsiest of opinions

                                                                       

UNDERSTANDING CHILD PROTECTION:

This is a basic guide for any members currently caught up in the CP process and attempts to give an objective view of CP and untangle the maze of professional interests. Hopefully it will also help you to understand what you can do to help yourself.

What is Child Protection:

Until 2004 Child Protection was defined by S.47 of the Children Act, 1984 as the responsibility of any local authority (and their social services department) to investigate where a child was believed: to have been harmed; to be suffering harm; or likely to suffer harm without intervention.

Since 2004 there has been countless policies and legislation expanding the scope of child protection to include other professional bodies (such as medical and voluntary agencies). This was a response to growing concern that in fact child abuse was and is spiralling in this country – which it is!

The main ideas are the same – that children who are likely to be harmed, have been harmed, or are being harmed should be protected but the scope of abuse has widened to include emotional and other abuses that are difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Who is the Subject of Child Protection:

It is the biggest mistake made to believe that CP processes are about the child – they are NOT! The CP process is about the adults around the child and assessing them for potential risk. Any adult, whether parent or not, has to be viewed as a potential danger. This is an important point because if there is an adult who is a risk to children then parent(s) who do not intervene and who continue to allow that adult access to their children then becomes a risk themselves!

What about the Law and Child Protection:

Whether or not charges can be brought against an adult the Local Authority has a duty to investigate, not only this but they have a duty to intervene where they think that the risk is real EVEN IF NO PROSECUTION IS LIKELY! This means that the legal system only accounts for PART of the process.

The other part of the process is the Local Authority making sure that children who are likely to have been abused, are likely being abuse, or are likely to be abused are held on a register – it used to be called the At Risk Register but it has a different name now.

Where the Local Authority believe that the parent(s)/guardian(s) of a child are incapable, even with support, of keeping a child safe then they have a duty and responsibility to remove the child from danger. This can be temporary via an Interim Care Order, emergency via Emergency Protection Order, long term via a residence or full care order, or in permanent via freeing and adoption orders.

At no time are the Local Authority legally obliged to provide services to the family in order to keep the child in the family home – though it is implicit in legislation that the family home is ‘normally’ the best place for the child to be, there is no law requiring that the Local Authority has to ensure that this happens. At the end of the day it is a case of whether the Local Authority believe that it is worthwhile to try this angle.

Remember – harm can be: emotional, physical or sexual, there is no need for the Local Authority to prove that harm is happening just that it would be likely to happen!

Categories Explained:

Emotional Abuse & Emotional Neglect:

Abuse under this heading is the deliberate action of an adult to cause emotional distress, trauma or injury. This can include terrorising a child, threats, psychological torture, blackmail, witnessing domestic violence etc. It is any action that is likely to bring about emotional or psychological harm.

Neglect, whilst really indistinct from abuse, normally means not helping your child develop emotional bonds and ties to people around them or not showing enough emotional affection and stimulation to the child.

Physical Abuse & Physical Neglect:

Abuse under this heading refers to any deliberate action of an adult to bring about a physical trauma – this can include (but not limited to) beatings, failure to provide warmth, inappropriate diet, smacking, exposure to illicit drugs, failure to seek medical attention for the child etc.

Neglect would tend to be in the realms of poor diet, lack of exercise, poor safety standards in the home to prevent accidents etc.

Sexual Abuse:

Is self explanatory.

Understanding the Professionals:

It is vitally important that you understand who the professionals are (or may be) that are involved in the CP process and where they are coming from:

Social Worker:

This is the ‘front line’ minion of the social services department, they actually have bugger all power themselves but their manager does! Specifically in CP you have to understand that the social worker and their manager will have seen countless HORRENDOUS case of abuse and neglect, they are like troops with battle fatigue or shell shock (PTSD). They have seen things totally unimaginable to the ordinary individual and this has an impact on them.

Add to this that they are currently facing the biggest service cuts in their history, they are being told to account for every penny spent and whilst most are genuine in their belief that their role is to make family life better they are not and never have been trained as accountants!

There is the added pressure that they are forever under the gaze of public scrutiny – via the press and other media. They rank lower than dentists and parking wardens in most people’s minds. This really impacts on them and how they do their job!

The social worker will likely have far too many cases on the go at the same time and this can be a ludicrous case load of minor support issues to the horrendous abuse cases and dodging between one and another wears them out.

Ultimately, and please don’t forget this, REGARDLESS OF THE SOCIAL WORKER’S OPINION, BELIEFS OR FEELINGS ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OR MAKING DECISIONS – IT WILL BE THEIR MANAGER!!!!!! You need to consider this quite carefully when deciding to have a go at a particular social worker, you may get them changed but the manager will remain the same!

Another myth is that social workers understand the law – they actually do not, and if they have a poor manager then this leads to all sorts of ‘dodgy’ practice. Child Law is the most complex as it deals so much with opinion rather than fact and it is very true that most social workers do not understand this. They have basic rights under law but invariably don’t know about them which is when they make matters worse by pressurising parents to give consent to things that they really don’t need to!

At the end of the day the social worker’s role is to treat you (the adult) as guilty, this isn’t how it should be but in practice is the only way that they have found that works – this is directly linked to poor management and leadership.

Police:

The police have a duty to remain involved in CP cases where there is a likely or realistic chance that charges will be brought – they will follow a very strict guide and only get involved in the lawful execution of their duties to detect and prosecute crime! If these elements are not present then they will leave the CP process.

Chairperson:

This is supposed to be an independent individual who coordinates the concerns of the professionals and guides the professionals into an agreed plan of action. As I have written elsewhere no one wants this role so it is dumped on social services. There are strict guidelines to these meetings but in practice they are unenforceable because there are no independent observers to such meetings.

Solicitors:

Your solicitor is engaged by you to follow your instructions – they are legally obliged to give you options and alternatives but are legally restricted from telling you what to do! This means that if you change your mind and tell them to do something different then they have to do this – even if they feel it is not in your best interests!

It is not your solicitor’s role to BELIEVE YOU, the whole principle is one where the issue of guilt or innocence is not of consequence, you have to have the best defence. Ultimately if you tell your solicitor that you are guilty of something (this applies more in criminal law) then they cannot ‘defend’ you by saying you are not guilty, they would have to excuse themselves if they know you are going to lie in court. This is why sometimes solicitors seem a bit aloof or distant, something you say may well indicate to them that you are ‘having issues’ and they cannot reasonably argue that you are not in court without telling lies!

QC/Barrister:

These are appointed individuals who present cases at Crown Court, they have special training and are normally tied to certain solicitor offices…

Conclusion:

You have to be prepared for the long haul and I cannot stress enough these are my key tips for dealing with the situation:

SHUT UP – yes this is my biggest tip, keep your mouth shut, the less you say the less they can accuse you of.

DON’T REACT – if you start f’ing and blinding all over the place this makes you look ‘out of control’, it makes their case stronger – they will often try and wind you up, you must remain calm.

GET A SOLICITOR – solicitors are not miracle workers and they only do what you tell them to, so have a good chat with them and...

LISTEN – you must listen to all the professionals, each will give you a tip to ending the process: if the doctor says “I don’t think your child is ill” then say thank you very much and leave! If the social worker says “we are worried about contact as your child keeps misbehaving afterwards” say oh dear that’s the last thing I want, how do you think we should handle this. You are either your own best friend or your own worst enemy!