If you want to lodge a complaint about someone putting up an oversized shed next door, but want to remain anonymous, planning authorities will typically tell you to get stuffed.
Why? Well, it's pretty obvious. Complaints where neither the authority being complained to, nor the person being complained about know who's behind the moaning inevitably lead to open gates for malice.
But if you want to remain anonymous to Social Services? No problem! They don't ask who you are, because, they say, the interests of the child are paramount over any concerns about anonymity. It sounds good, until you ask: is Social Services about family wellbeing, or just protecting children? It ought to be an equal concern.
This is the terrible place local authorities up and down the UK have taken us. Arse-kicked into covering their own backsides after high-profile failures on their part, they've now swung to the other extreme of making everyone guilty until they can prove otherwise.
It is, in no uncertain terms, a turning of centuries of legal safeguards against arbitrary punishment by the state on its head. Forget Magna Carta, because Social Services plebs think it's a kind of upmarket coffee.
And forget, too, the line that "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about." It's a lie. If someone that hates you cottons-on to the fact they can make as many complaints about your parenting abilities as they like without anyone asking who they are, chances are they will. Children are emotive. They grab the headlines. Especially when Social Services get things wrong.
Many will say that anonymity encourages reporting of bad parenting. Probably true. But then, it was an ethic used to terrible effect by the Stasi, too. Is that where the UK has come to? It is.
It's time Parliament put an end to entirely anonymous reporting of allegations against parents. If complainants want their details withheld, the Data Protection Act 1998 already allows that with no difficulty. If this practice were to end, then it would be easier for parents maliciously targeted by former partners, estranged spouses and neighbours with nothing else to do of a day, to tell Social Services who they think is responsible, and match that against what is often long-term harassing conduct by others, and often a matter of clear police record, too.
So long as Social Services redefine innocence by allowing completely anonymous accusations to be filed, parents - and their children - p and down the country remain at significant risk of further distress and harm. After all, send a shirty letter to a parent that someone, somewhere has moaned about them, and chances are they won't be taking it very lightly. It's an incredibly awful experience, sometimes pushing already stressed parents to the edge.
It's no good saying, on first complaint, that the "file is closed." If anonymity is OK, then Social Services can't tell whether the first anonymous complaint wasn't also made by the same person as the second. So, when they do get the second malicious complaint, they assume it's made independently of the first. They have to, because nobody asks who's moaning. This is just fundamentally wrong and ought never to have been allowed to become the default arse-covering, anti-rule of law system that operates daily in the UK.
It is a shame on the British spirit of justice, no less.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Anglesey Incompetence and a Judicial Condemnation
Anglesey Council has this week found itself in the remarkable and shameful position of being condemned by a family court judge for failing to follow basic procedures relating to a child's care.
The child's mother, as is widely reported elsewhere, suffered a temporary psychiatric illness. As a result, the child was properly put into care.
But when the mother recovered and returned home, the Council, in a move that can only be described as utterly incompetent, refused to give the child back for five months. During all that time, they had no Care Order of any description, and thus no lawful basis on which to prevent the child from being returned to its mother, who had a right to be so returned at any time.
Only on the award of an injunction - stopping the council from acting unlawfully - did it return the child as it ought to have done from the outset.
Judge Gareth Jones (Family Division, Mold) commented about his suspicion - which he stressed was only a suspicion - that the Council had failed to follow procedures in an attempt to reduce its costs, hoping that these suspicions would not be confirmed.
The Judge also commented on the obvious: that the Council had not asked itself even basic questions as to the legal grounds on which it was preventing the child returning home. So, rather than just not following procedures, the Council seemed to simply have not considered the basis on which their daily work is directed.
For anyone who thinks following procedures is an inconsequential technicality, it isn't. An Authority attempting or in fact acting outside the law has become a dangerous animal. On that basis, the rule of law fails to control the state, which continues to act according to its own, illegitimate rules.
Judge Jones clearly fired a very large shell across the bows of the once-more listing Anglesey ship when he made clear to them that they are not above the law, and subject to it. We might be grateful to Judge Jones for quite such a setting-straight of the manner in which the UK should and must operate.
Judge Jones commented that the Social Services Department appeared not to have been under the proper control of the Authority's Legal Department, which one might interpret as a thinly-veiled swipe at the latter department. He said he had formed similar suspicions in a previous case involving the same council.
The child's mother is now seeking damages from the Authority, which has accepted it failed to follow proper procedures but claims it did act in "good faith". Good faith is an oft-used term in local authority circles. But in this case, it is unsustainable precisely because acting in good faith necessarily meant acting according to the law that directs the manner in which councils operate, which Anglesey accepts it failed to do.
Judge Jones asked the council to demonstrate to the public it could again discharge its function without external help competently, adding that it had "failed abysmally" in the present case. The entire Council was put under special measures from Cardiff in 2011, with its Education Department separately receiving the same in 2012.
Few who keep an eye on local politics on Anglesey think that the same tired faces trying to stretch out to their gold-plated pensions can make the meaningful long-term cultural changes needed. Instead, just a couple of years on, we seem to be already on a steady return to the kind of unacceptable normality Anglesey exhibited since it became an Authority in the 1990s.
One can only hope the claim and eventual award to the child's mother reflects the exceptional seriousness of a Council acting outside the law, and the grave impacts this had on the family.
As to those within Social Services, the Legal Department and others who landed Anglesey taxpayers with another hefty legal bill, one can only hope against hope that a senior someone, somewhere, will get the chop - without a golden, 'keep your mouth shut' compromise agreement 'goodbye'. Not that anyone is holding their breath...
The child's mother, as is widely reported elsewhere, suffered a temporary psychiatric illness. As a result, the child was properly put into care.
But when the mother recovered and returned home, the Council, in a move that can only be described as utterly incompetent, refused to give the child back for five months. During all that time, they had no Care Order of any description, and thus no lawful basis on which to prevent the child from being returned to its mother, who had a right to be so returned at any time.
Only on the award of an injunction - stopping the council from acting unlawfully - did it return the child as it ought to have done from the outset.
Judge Gareth Jones (Family Division, Mold) commented about his suspicion - which he stressed was only a suspicion - that the Council had failed to follow procedures in an attempt to reduce its costs, hoping that these suspicions would not be confirmed.
 |
| Anglesey Council might do well to read this book... |
The Judge also commented on the obvious: that the Council had not asked itself even basic questions as to the legal grounds on which it was preventing the child returning home. So, rather than just not following procedures, the Council seemed to simply have not considered the basis on which their daily work is directed.
For anyone who thinks following procedures is an inconsequential technicality, it isn't. An Authority attempting or in fact acting outside the law has become a dangerous animal. On that basis, the rule of law fails to control the state, which continues to act according to its own, illegitimate rules.
Judge Jones clearly fired a very large shell across the bows of the once-more listing Anglesey ship when he made clear to them that they are not above the law, and subject to it. We might be grateful to Judge Jones for quite such a setting-straight of the manner in which the UK should and must operate.
Judge Jones commented that the Social Services Department appeared not to have been under the proper control of the Authority's Legal Department, which one might interpret as a thinly-veiled swipe at the latter department. He said he had formed similar suspicions in a previous case involving the same council.
The child's mother is now seeking damages from the Authority, which has accepted it failed to follow proper procedures but claims it did act in "good faith". Good faith is an oft-used term in local authority circles. But in this case, it is unsustainable precisely because acting in good faith necessarily meant acting according to the law that directs the manner in which councils operate, which Anglesey accepts it failed to do.
Judge Jones asked the council to demonstrate to the public it could again discharge its function without external help competently, adding that it had "failed abysmally" in the present case. The entire Council was put under special measures from Cardiff in 2011, with its Education Department separately receiving the same in 2012.
Few who keep an eye on local politics on Anglesey think that the same tired faces trying to stretch out to their gold-plated pensions can make the meaningful long-term cultural changes needed. Instead, just a couple of years on, we seem to be already on a steady return to the kind of unacceptable normality Anglesey exhibited since it became an Authority in the 1990s.
One can only hope the claim and eventual award to the child's mother reflects the exceptional seriousness of a Council acting outside the law, and the grave impacts this had on the family.
As to those within Social Services, the Legal Department and others who landed Anglesey taxpayers with another hefty legal bill, one can only hope against hope that a senior someone, somewhere, will get the chop - without a golden, 'keep your mouth shut' compromise agreement 'goodbye'. Not that anyone is holding their breath...
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Cardiff Backs Off From Home School Law
A consultation report on a possible law to regulate home schooling has come in for severe criticism and been rejected as a good idea by over 80% of respondents.
The Education Minister launched a consultation on whether introducing legislation to force parents to register and engage with local education authorities had support amongst the public and LEAs.
Over 80% of parents responding to the consultation rejected the proposals, which included a possible legal right of entry into parents' homes.
As a result, the Minister has backed-off from introducing legislation, highlighting the very clear battle line drawn between parents, who overwhelmingly saw the moves as "state interference", and LEAs, who thought they'd like to start pushing their weight around inside people's homes because there could be welfare issues to consider.
A dark undercurrent in fact flows through the position of the LEAs. Their responses show a clear prejudice against the whole concept of home schooling. LEA responses seem to apply a suspicion that those parents who pull their children out of what are, within Wales, often dire schools, must have some motive other than alternative educational provision.
As is usual for just about any public body trying to get its own way these days, the words "health and safety" are used as justification to enter homes and inspect just what's going on inside. However, laws already exist to allow intervention where there is no evidence of reasonable educational efforts going on at home. Similarly, there are laws to deal with those tiny minority who may be hiding something sinister by keeping their kids from school.
But this is clearly not enough for the LEAs. Rather than accept the doctrine of innocent until evidence shows otherwise, they want to label everyone a criminal who must prove their innocence. They very much want to see parents as suspicious simply for wanting to home school. Their responses show a deeply troubling attempt at an extension of their mandates as educational authorities to something much more like a combination of police and social services.
One parent made the point, and I can confirm the sentiment, that dealing with a local authority was "the most stressful and time-consuming" thing she'd ever done. Across Wales, we have stories of authorities making false claims against parents, poor relations between schools and homes, and almost all 22 LEAs failing to meet those expectations for which they are paid handsomely to achieve.
Parents angrily made the point that LEAs don't, themselves, have a good definition of what a "suitable education" actually is, typically have a bias against home schooling for no good reason other than for being different, and cannot, in most areas of Wales, themselves deliver a suitable education. Witness the PISA results over many years to find justification for this view.
The Minister has, for his part, exercised what can only be termed good judgement in immediately pulling back from legislation in this area. Forging ahead would have led to an inevitable and rapid digging of deeper trenches between a state that wants to interfere deeper and deeper with personal lives, and those who are self-sufficient and see the Welsh education system for the total failure that it is.
The message from parents is clear: if the government provided education to an acceptable standard within Wales, they wouldn't have to sacrifice their lives to home schooling. The LEAs must look at their own, appalling record sheet of failures before they start telling parents they don't know what they're doing.
In the end, the parent has a legal duty, not just a right, to ensure the suitable and sufficient education of their children. That has always meant they have a choice to educate outside the state provisions, and even outside any formal school organisation. This must never change, and local authorities must never be allowed to be judge and jury in their own cause.
The Education Minister launched a consultation on whether introducing legislation to force parents to register and engage with local education authorities had support amongst the public and LEAs.
Over 80% of parents responding to the consultation rejected the proposals, which included a possible legal right of entry into parents' homes.
As a result, the Minister has backed-off from introducing legislation, highlighting the very clear battle line drawn between parents, who overwhelmingly saw the moves as "state interference", and LEAs, who thought they'd like to start pushing their weight around inside people's homes because there could be welfare issues to consider.
A dark undercurrent in fact flows through the position of the LEAs. Their responses show a clear prejudice against the whole concept of home schooling. LEA responses seem to apply a suspicion that those parents who pull their children out of what are, within Wales, often dire schools, must have some motive other than alternative educational provision.
As is usual for just about any public body trying to get its own way these days, the words "health and safety" are used as justification to enter homes and inspect just what's going on inside. However, laws already exist to allow intervention where there is no evidence of reasonable educational efforts going on at home. Similarly, there are laws to deal with those tiny minority who may be hiding something sinister by keeping their kids from school.
But this is clearly not enough for the LEAs. Rather than accept the doctrine of innocent until evidence shows otherwise, they want to label everyone a criminal who must prove their innocence. They very much want to see parents as suspicious simply for wanting to home school. Their responses show a deeply troubling attempt at an extension of their mandates as educational authorities to something much more like a combination of police and social services.
One parent made the point, and I can confirm the sentiment, that dealing with a local authority was "the most stressful and time-consuming" thing she'd ever done. Across Wales, we have stories of authorities making false claims against parents, poor relations between schools and homes, and almost all 22 LEAs failing to meet those expectations for which they are paid handsomely to achieve.
Parents angrily made the point that LEAs don't, themselves, have a good definition of what a "suitable education" actually is, typically have a bias against home schooling for no good reason other than for being different, and cannot, in most areas of Wales, themselves deliver a suitable education. Witness the PISA results over many years to find justification for this view.
The Minister has, for his part, exercised what can only be termed good judgement in immediately pulling back from legislation in this area. Forging ahead would have led to an inevitable and rapid digging of deeper trenches between a state that wants to interfere deeper and deeper with personal lives, and those who are self-sufficient and see the Welsh education system for the total failure that it is.
The message from parents is clear: if the government provided education to an acceptable standard within Wales, they wouldn't have to sacrifice their lives to home schooling. The LEAs must look at their own, appalling record sheet of failures before they start telling parents they don't know what they're doing.
In the end, the parent has a legal duty, not just a right, to ensure the suitable and sufficient education of their children. That has always meant they have a choice to educate outside the state provisions, and even outside any formal school organisation. This must never change, and local authorities must never be allowed to be judge and jury in their own cause.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Gwynedd Council - A Failure of Government
Gwynedd Council, strapped for cash (but not for those in 'important positions') has announced it will reduce bin collection frequency to once every three weeks from October.
Appearing on BBC news, a councillor (elderly, not very good at speaking english, you know the sort), asserted that "we can't keep on putting rubbish in the ground, those days are over."
Well, he has a point, of course. But let's think about this for a while. Putting things into the ground has been a legal aim for councils for very, very many years. Legislation originating in Europe was complied with quite quickly across the member states, apart from one laggard - the UK. Being a former imperial colonist, the UK knew better than everyone else, so just kept putting it off.
Now, the solution to not putting things into the ground is rather more complex. But what's blatantly obvious is that you can't do it just by not collecting bins quite so often. You don't generate less rubbish simply because the bin men aren't coming. You just delay its entry into landfill, not avoid it.
The main reason Gwynedd won't end-up with less landfill with a three week collection period is that the people who generate all that packaging - the manufacturers - have never meaningfully been targeted by government. No, they are a bit too difficult to tackle, and we have a free market, and so on. So, here, have more cellophane around an individual biscuit, wrapped in three further layers of plastic, just in case.
As usual, it's a mild case of 'when there's a problem, hit the poor public'. It is bad government, with very little thinking other than 'must save money' behind it. Maybe, if councils stopped signing-up to expensive contracts with private companies who must make a profit, they could save money that way. But, oh no, that would mean someone in the council would have to get up off their arses, instead of being made to feel important by private companies for doing very little other than holding sway over where the contracts go.
So, the challenge is to see (a) how much money Gwynedd really do save with three week collections and (b) by how much landfill volumes fall as a sole result of three week collections. Oh, and (c), how much more fly tipping and toxic burning will take place, and how CCTV shut-downs will allow perpetrators to do so with impunity.
And all that's without even touching on the health effects of a bin, sweltering away for three weeks in the summer sun.
Nice one Gwynedd! Another example of why local government is such a joke.
Appearing on BBC news, a councillor (elderly, not very good at speaking english, you know the sort), asserted that "we can't keep on putting rubbish in the ground, those days are over."
 |
| Only three weeks to go before bin day... |
Well, he has a point, of course. But let's think about this for a while. Putting things into the ground has been a legal aim for councils for very, very many years. Legislation originating in Europe was complied with quite quickly across the member states, apart from one laggard - the UK. Being a former imperial colonist, the UK knew better than everyone else, so just kept putting it off.
Now, the solution to not putting things into the ground is rather more complex. But what's blatantly obvious is that you can't do it just by not collecting bins quite so often. You don't generate less rubbish simply because the bin men aren't coming. You just delay its entry into landfill, not avoid it.
The main reason Gwynedd won't end-up with less landfill with a three week collection period is that the people who generate all that packaging - the manufacturers - have never meaningfully been targeted by government. No, they are a bit too difficult to tackle, and we have a free market, and so on. So, here, have more cellophane around an individual biscuit, wrapped in three further layers of plastic, just in case.
As usual, it's a mild case of 'when there's a problem, hit the poor public'. It is bad government, with very little thinking other than 'must save money' behind it. Maybe, if councils stopped signing-up to expensive contracts with private companies who must make a profit, they could save money that way. But, oh no, that would mean someone in the council would have to get up off their arses, instead of being made to feel important by private companies for doing very little other than holding sway over where the contracts go.
So, the challenge is to see (a) how much money Gwynedd really do save with three week collections and (b) by how much landfill volumes fall as a sole result of three week collections. Oh, and (c), how much more fly tipping and toxic burning will take place, and how CCTV shut-downs will allow perpetrators to do so with impunity.
And all that's without even touching on the health effects of a bin, sweltering away for three weeks in the summer sun.
Nice one Gwynedd! Another example of why local government is such a joke.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Anglesey: Vive la Revolution!
Here we go again!
As predicted and expected, Anglesey Council is well underway to ripping itself apart again.
Taken over by direct control from Cardiff a couple of years ago, a newly-elected council, drawing on re-drawn ward boundaries, is already splintering.
Jeff Evans and Peter Rogers have formed a new 'Revolution' group, claiming that cuts and closures are a "fait accompli". This, they claim, leaves councillors as mere bystanders as the hard line from Westminster is, for the first time since the financial crisis began, becoming sorely evident to Joe Public.
If the motivations are as they say, then Evans and Rogers are to be congratulated in focusing on super-critical analysis of what cuts are proposed, and what alternatives may exist. The Council, on the other hand, seems intent on getting as many cuts through as quickly as possible, in order to meet their financial projections.
Rumours have it that a senior officer of the council has been suspended, pending an investigation surrounding an allegation of failure to cooperate with councillors. As a result, the council seems to be on a sure course to self-destruction and so, one might even hope, setting itself up nicely for absorption by Gwynedd.
As predicted and expected, Anglesey Council is well underway to ripping itself apart again.
Taken over by direct control from Cardiff a couple of years ago, a newly-elected council, drawing on re-drawn ward boundaries, is already splintering.
 |
| Anglesey: the latest, and unlikely venue for a 'revolution'. |
Jeff Evans and Peter Rogers have formed a new 'Revolution' group, claiming that cuts and closures are a "fait accompli". This, they claim, leaves councillors as mere bystanders as the hard line from Westminster is, for the first time since the financial crisis began, becoming sorely evident to Joe Public.
If the motivations are as they say, then Evans and Rogers are to be congratulated in focusing on super-critical analysis of what cuts are proposed, and what alternatives may exist. The Council, on the other hand, seems intent on getting as many cuts through as quickly as possible, in order to meet their financial projections.
Rumours have it that a senior officer of the council has been suspended, pending an investigation surrounding an allegation of failure to cooperate with councillors. As a result, the council seems to be on a sure course to self-destruction and so, one might even hope, setting itself up nicely for absorption by Gwynedd.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Anglesey Council's Heavy Hand
Late last week, some protesters - witnesses say they numbered about 6 - gathered outside to protest about the alleged neglect of horses at an Anglesey farm.
The Council, together with the RSPCA and other agencies, had been involved with attempting to resolve the horses' claimed plight.
The six protesters, however, were met with about twenty private security heavies, paid for out of your hard-won taxes.
So there you have it. Politicians and authorities doing what it has always done in the face of dissent - put up aggressive, disproportionate barriers between it and the people who pay their salaries.
The Council, together with the RSPCA and other agencies, had been involved with attempting to resolve the horses' claimed plight.
 |
| Anglesey Council's next security cordon for peaceful protesters? |
So there you have it. Politicians and authorities doing what it has always done in the face of dissent - put up aggressive, disproportionate barriers between it and the people who pay their salaries.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Anglesey Council - Hypocrisy Central
Anglesey Council has "categorically" stated that there will never be a nuclear waste repository on the island.
This reveals the monumental stupidity and sheer hypocrisy of this council and its noddy councillors, who have often been labelled a "basketcase" council by Private Eye.
You see, Anglesey has, for the past several years, been enthusiastically embracing a new nuclear build - now to be called Wylfa Newydd, as though it were some innocuous family farm. This, in addition to its mindless support of the existing Wylfa, now half a century old.
Anglesey council even decided years ago to trademark itself as "Energy Island", although their mandate for doing so is open to serious question.
So, the message is precisely as we would expect from the parochial, provincial little people who make up Anglesey Council: we want the benefits of nuclear, but not the waste that industry generates, thanks.
This kind of idiotic argument reflects the populist, pathetic politics of recent years in relation to nuclear: those parties, like Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems, who had 'official' positions against nuclear, saw their local candidates warmly supporting the industry.
The message there was as hypocritical as that against nuclear waste: we want the votes, and opposing nuclear won't deliver them - or so they think.
Popular support for new nuclear on Anglesey is more an assertion and industry distortion, rather than fact. An independent, academic-led survey of attitudes to new nuclear asked far more subtle questions of the Anglesey population.
The outcome of the survey by Bangor University researchers was in contrast to industry-conducted surveys: the majority were opposed to new nuclear, not in support. It all depended on how your framed the question.
So, for the past few years, Anglesey politiicans and the council have been leading the people up a garden path, forcing them to accept new nuclear, new pylons, but no waste.
On all counts, Anglesey fails. Its Council, already mired in cuts amounting to £20 million over the coming years, is apparently "categorically" refusing to consider the hundreds of millions of pounds offered on a plate, were they to host a repository for waste.
If ever you needed an example of why people are disengaging with politics, this shameful episode must surely rank as a classic.
This reveals the monumental stupidity and sheer hypocrisy of this council and its noddy councillors, who have often been labelled a "basketcase" council by Private Eye.
 |
| Anglesey wants the good, but not the bad. |
You see, Anglesey has, for the past several years, been enthusiastically embracing a new nuclear build - now to be called Wylfa Newydd, as though it were some innocuous family farm. This, in addition to its mindless support of the existing Wylfa, now half a century old.
Anglesey council even decided years ago to trademark itself as "Energy Island", although their mandate for doing so is open to serious question.
So, the message is precisely as we would expect from the parochial, provincial little people who make up Anglesey Council: we want the benefits of nuclear, but not the waste that industry generates, thanks.
This kind of idiotic argument reflects the populist, pathetic politics of recent years in relation to nuclear: those parties, like Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems, who had 'official' positions against nuclear, saw their local candidates warmly supporting the industry.
The message there was as hypocritical as that against nuclear waste: we want the votes, and opposing nuclear won't deliver them - or so they think.
 |
| An Anglesey councillor: "we want niwcliar jobs, not waste. Baaa.." |
Popular support for new nuclear on Anglesey is more an assertion and industry distortion, rather than fact. An independent, academic-led survey of attitudes to new nuclear asked far more subtle questions of the Anglesey population.
The outcome of the survey by Bangor University researchers was in contrast to industry-conducted surveys: the majority were opposed to new nuclear, not in support. It all depended on how your framed the question.
So, for the past few years, Anglesey politiicans and the council have been leading the people up a garden path, forcing them to accept new nuclear, new pylons, but no waste.
On all counts, Anglesey fails. Its Council, already mired in cuts amounting to £20 million over the coming years, is apparently "categorically" refusing to consider the hundreds of millions of pounds offered on a plate, were they to host a repository for waste.
If ever you needed an example of why people are disengaging with politics, this shameful episode must surely rank as a classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)