Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Good grief!

Recommended Posts

When you look below the clickbait headlines on this you'll see the law says that when a child is taken into care that all listed key stakeholders in the child's life, including both natural parents, should be notified and advised of the process.

Rotherham have followed the law to the letter because legally they have no option.  If you don't like the law then get your MP to support the efforts to change it.  It is a stupid law because it gives councils no discretion.

In no part of the country under any circumstance would the rapist be allowed any access to the child.

Rotherham have done a lot wrong but this is one where they're bound by the law to do as they did and have no scope to evade it.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ckn said:

When you look below the clickbait headlines on this you'll see the law says that when a child is taken into care that all listed key stakeholders in the child's life, including both natural parents, should be notified and advised of the process.

Rotherham have followed the law to the letter because legally they have no option.  If you don't like the law then get your MP to support the efforts to change it.  It is a stupid law because it gives councils no discretion.

In no part of the country under any circumstance would the rapist be allowed any access to the child.

Rotherham have done a lot wrong but this is one where they're bound by the law to do as they did and have no scope to evade it.

Stop spoiling things with facts

  • Like 1

"I am the avenging angel; I come with wings unfurled, I come with claws extended from halfway round the world. I am the God Almighty, I am the howling wind. I care not for your family; I care not for your kin. I come in search of terror, though terror is my own; I come in search of vengeance for crimes and crimes unknown. I care not for your children, I care not for your wives, I care not for your country, I care not for your lives." - (c) Jim Boyes - "The Avenging Angel"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tim2 said:

Stop spoiling things with facts

Wasn't that serial rapist Warboys (or whatever) due for release under the law?

This hasn't happened now, due to outside pressure. Should they have just accepted that it was the letter of the law?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC clickbait? ???

That's enough to get you both kicked out of the BBC Supporters Club (motto The BBC is never wrong)

Knowing the potential for harm, what steps did the council and it officers take to try to avoid ####### everyone off, to avoid the obvious distress they were about to cause and to avoid criticism for " just following orders"?   There is no evidence that they did anything to avoid this happening. 


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ckn said:

When you look below the clickbait headlines on this you'll see the law says that when a child is taken into care that all listed key stakeholders in the child's life, including both natural parents, should be notified and advised of the process.

Rotherham have followed the law to the letter because legally they have no option.  If you don't like the law then get your MP to support the efforts to change it.  It is a stupid law because it gives councils no discretion.

In no part of the country under any circumstance would the rapist be allowed any access to the child.

Rotherham have done a lot wrong but this is one where they're bound by the law to do as they did and have no scope to evade it.

Councils are not infrequent breakers of the law.

It may be though that in this instance, Rotherham didn't follow the law closely enough. The MoJ are of this opinion:

"Local authorities can apply to courts to request permission not to notify parents without parental responsibility about care proceedings, and courts should consider the potential harm to the child and mother when making this decision."

 

  • Like 2

It's not a question of coming down to earth, Mr Duxbury. Some of us, Mr Duxbury, belong in the stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Wasn't that serial rapist Warboys (or whatever) due for release under the law?

Parole Board.

I *think* it's been established the board was not acting in line with its own guidance and procedures. I doubt that would have happened without the outcry though.

  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stevo said:

Councils are not infrequent breakers of the law.

It may be though that in this instance, Rotherham didn't follow the law closely enough. The MoJ are of this opinion:

"Local authorities can apply to courts to request permission not to notify parents without parental responsibility about care proceedings, and courts should consider the potential harm to the child and mother when making this decision."

 

Exactly my point, put much better than I did but of course dismissed on here. The question is therefore, why  did they not do that, given that it was Rotherham. 


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who could look at this case and not see the potential harm in actively looking to get the rapist involved in this kids life should not be involved in social work. Even if they 'followed' the rules'.

Morons of the highest order.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tim2 said:

Stop spoiling things with facts

He didn't because he didn't actually include all the facts!  I've just been reading up on this on the Guardian website and it's quite clear that Rotherham could have taken legal evasive action.  They are presently claiming that they didn't know and are requesting clarity.  Well, if they didn't know something that is already in the guidance then they have been remiss.  But then we are talking about Rotherham!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too be fair, the Guilty person has actually told Rotherham Council that he wants nothing to do with the child


RESURGAM

Non solum autem Leones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

Too be fair, the Guilty person has actually told Rotherham Council that he wants nothing to do with the child

didn't stop them, though.


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Anyone who could look at this case and not see the potential harm in actively looking to get the rapist involved in this kids life should not be involved in social work. Even if they 'followed' the rules'.

Morons of the highest order.

 

This. This 1000 times!!!

I'm not going to get into the rovrum thing. I still work and live here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise the journalist was also the author of the discredited Tower Hamlets muslim fostering story.

Maybe a pattern is forming.  


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

I didn't realise the journalist was also the author of the discredited Tower Hamlets muslim fostering story.

Maybe a pattern is forming.  

Well, it all makes a bit more sense now.


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...