Jail Social Workers

[cromwell]

Fine. But how long do we go on for?

The basic problem imo is the demise of the family unit, or it's weakening. Until that problem is addressed instead of being ignored, the SS will certainly have to go on rescuing such children - there will certainly never be a shortage of cases for them to deal with.

[Workingman]

Social services are being asked to do a job that is not doable.

That is probably right in a lot of cases, not all, but surely it cannot be used as an excuse to walk away?

Perhaps a better use of the funds would be to put in place methods to identify these types of parents and "aunties" and "uncles" at an early stage and then to dish out some real punishments?

The mother of Baby P, the woman who helped kill him, walked free today after only four years in custody. That sort of "punishment" sends out the totally wrong message.

[cromwell]

It may be WM. But to me the law of unforeseen circumstances kicked in a long time ago with children and the state.

So when you make provision for badly treated children, all of a sudden you find out you have a lot more badly treated children. When you provide breakfast for poor children you find yourself providing more breakfasts - because some parents who can't be Ars@d will just send their kids to school knowing that the school will give them breakfast rather than see them hungry. Pay parents for having children and some parents will start having more children. Give parents more money for children with ADHD and all of a sudden the cases of ADHD go up.

Make allowances for bad parenting and you create more bad parenting.

It's like trying to water the garden with a watering can that has a hole in it. By the time you get to the end of the garden to water the plants there, there's no water left in the can.

"We need more water!" cry the political classes. No, you need a watering can that doesn't have a hole in it.

[debih]

Fine. But how long do we go on for?

The basic problem imo is the demise of the family unit, or it's weakening. Until that problem is addressed instead of being ignored, the SS will certainly have to go on rescuing such children - there will certainly never be a shortage of cases for them to deal with.

Then surely the same can be said about the elderly. In days gone by their families looked after them. Should we not abolish SS for the elderly as their children/families should be caring for them.

[debih]

Social services are being asked to do a job that is not doable.

That is probably right in a lot of cases, not all, but surely it cannot be used as an excuse to walk away?

Perhaps a better use of the funds would be to put in place methods to identify these types of parents and "aunties" and "uncles" at an early stage and then to dish out some real punishments?

The mother of Baby P, the woman who helped kill him, walked free today after only four years in custody. That sort of "punishment" sends out the totally wrong message.

I agree WM. Taking their children away isn't a punishment - they just go in to have more.

Real punishment should take place to deter them from doing it again. Though the main way to stop it is to educate the children that are being badly parented to try to break the cycle .

[TheOstrich]

I can understand both sides of the argument (debih's and Cromwell's); however, just putting the pros and cons of child social work to one side for a moment, there has to be a bottom line solution to all this, and that is to stop people who cannot be proper parents from breeding. I'm beginning to think that procreation should not be a fundamental human right, and if you've got, let us say, a couple of addicts like those Shaz mentioned, once one child had been taken into care, the parents should be neutered (both partners).

I realise that argument would open up an accusation of genetic engineering, but what else can you do? The current "system" cannot cope, so if you want to prevent "needless deaths", you have to deal with the problem at its original source.

Just my 2c worth ....

[debih]

In an ideal world Ossie, in an ideal world.

[cromwell]

you have to deal with the problem at its original source.

You do. Otherwise you have to attempt to meet an unmeetable demand, which is what's happening now.

But dealing with the problem at source would be to reverse 50 odd years of social policy. Social policy that in the area of children (and many other areas) has been a massive failure.

So which representative of the political class is going to stick their hands up and admit to that one?

It's not going to happen, is it?

[Workingman]

Neutering paedophiles, sex offenders, rapists and piss-poor parents will have some support in society, and possibly even with some politicians. However, I think that it takes us dangerously close to Eugenics.

I cannot speak for others, but had Eugenics ever become mainstream my brother would not have been born. There would have been no choice, he would have failed the test: the end. And Eugenics is not dead by any means, it lives on under different guises.

Today brought news that a simple blood test in early pregnancy can detect Down's Syndrome and is to be made available on the NHS. It is being hailed as a breakthrough and will prevent women undergoing the current invasive testing. So far, so good. But what will happen over time, and I will put money on it, is that it will not only be available to those at high risk, it will be on open offer, and we all know what a positive result will mean: Eugenics lite.

No thanks.

[Aggers]

Real punishment should take place to deter them from doing it again. .

I quite agree, Debih.

In my opinion, the lack of 'real' punishment is the cause of much of the decline in
behaviour in society today, thanks to the "do-gooders" and the Human Rights Act.

Perhaps one day we will change things and we will re-introduce the old tried and
tested methods. I see that it's starting to happen is education now - about time.