Peter Wanless: independent reviewer?

Peter Wanless, CEO of the NSPCC, has too many connections with the establishment to be considered an independent reviewer of historical sex abuse. See the extract from Wikipedia:

After joining the Civil Service, he held a variety of posts at the HM Treasury, including Head of Private Finance Policy, and Principal Private Secretary to three Cabinet Ministers including Michael Portillo, both when Portillo was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and later as Secretary of State for Employment. Wanless later held senior positions within the Department for Education and Skills and its successor the including Director of School Performance and Reform and Director of Strategy and Communications.

Wanless was CEO of the Big Lottery Fund between February 2008 and May 2013 when he was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). He is a non-executive director of The Kemnal Academies Trust (TKAT), which operates academy schools in South East England.

In July 2014, Home Secretary Theresa May announced that he would be leading a review into historical sex abuse claims.

The NSPCC is to review the investigation. Should we trust them?

"The Home Office gave nearly £500,000 to groups linked to campaigners for sex with children."

"A Whitehall inquiry found ‘clear evidence’ that £476,250 was granted over a decade to two organisations connected to the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange."

"The findings were released yesterday as Home Secretary Theresa May announced a major inquiry into how public bodies dealt with historical allegations of child sex abuse."

"As the paedophile scandal continued to engulf Westminster, it also emerged that: "
A separate inquiry, led by NSPCC chief Peter Wanless, is to review an investigation conducted last year into the Home Office’s handling of past child abuse allegations;
Prosecutors decided in 1998 not to lay child abuse charges against Liberal MP Cyril Smith despite ruling they were likely to succeed;

A former head of PIE hid documents inside the Home Office, where he was cleared to work as a contractor;

A member of the Heath government suggested he could secure the loyalty of MPs by covering up scandals involving them and ‘small boys’;

An unnamed minister in Tony Blair’s government was alleged to have tried to help a convicted paedophile foster two boys;

Former home secretary Lord Brittan insisted allegations that he failed to deal properly with allegations of child abuse were completely without foundation;
One of the first MPs to call for an overarching inquiry, Lib Dem Tessa Munt, revealed she was a victim of child abuse.  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683917/Home-Office-gave-money-groups-linked-paedophiles.html#ixzz36utXIohm

McKelvie alleges at least 20 prominent figures abused children for decades

"At least 20 prominent figures are believed to be among a "powerful elite" of paedophiles who abused children for "decades", according to a former child protection manager."

"Police were said to be investigating more than ten current and former politicians over alleged child abuse, but Peter McKelvie told BBC Newsnight: "I would say we are looking at upwards of 20 and a much larger number of people who have known about it and done nothing about it."

"McKelvie, whose allegations led to the 2012 police inquiry, said he had spoken to many male victims who had been subjected to the "worst form of abuse", including rape, when they were children."

"His comments came just hours after Home Secretary Theresa May announced a wide-ranging inquiry into historical sex abuse claims. Parliament, the police, schools, churches and the BBC will be among those subjected to the investigation, which will have the same legal status as the Hillsborough inquiry and will not report until after next year's general election."

"Several MPs have complained that the inquiry will not be led by a judge with the power to summon witnesses and seize papers. Conservative MP Mark Reckless told the Daily Mirror he would therefore be surprised if suspected paedophiles facing criminal prosecutions would co-operate without a judge at its helm. "

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/child-abuse-inquiry/59321/westminster-paedophile-ring-claims-20-top-figures-involved

PIE files were stored in the Home Office

"The former leader of a pro-paedophile campaign boasted of storing the group’s files in the Home Office while he worked there."

"Steven Smith, 60, said he was given security clearance for his Whitehall job by Scotland Yard despite being chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange."

"He worked as an electrical contractor monitoring security alarms at the Home Office for four years in the late 1970s and early 1980s."

"Smith later went on the run while facing charges over child abuse images. He was jailed in 1991 and again in 2011."

"In an obscure book published in 1986, he told how he was given a room of his own at the Home Office and used it to conceal PIE’s files."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683929/Paedophile-Home-Office-He-boasted-storing-PIE-files-police-never-discover-them.html

Child killer preparing for release

"A notorious double child killer has been pictured for the first time in almost 40 years as he volunteered at a gardening project in preparation for his release."

"Alex Millar bludgeoned siblings John, 13, and Irene McMonigle, 12, to death with a hammer in a crime which shocked Scotland in 1976."

"He has been held in secure units ever since..."

"But now Scottish ministers say his case has to be readdressed under legislation covering restricted patients and the McMonigle family and their supporters are again faced with the stress of waiting to see if he will go free."

"The family are preparing to lodge a 1000-signature petition with the Scottish Parliament and have 16,000 supporters signed up to a Facebook page calling for Millar to remain in secure care."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/child-killer-alex-millar-who-3820065

Criminalising parents for bad behaviour

While the Coalition’s proposal to criminalise emotional neglect is different to the named person scheme in Scotland, there is a concern that it could be a gateway to similar Big Brother legislation that may criminalise innocent parents and invade the privacy of family life in England and Wales.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/fury-over-parents-spied-on-by-scots-state-guardians/

The newly established Family Court, now officially the home of family law, begins a new chapter in the history of child welfare which promises to make the system more child focused and family friendly. At the same time, a growing trend imposing criminal sanctions for behaviour which negatively affects children seems to be pulling at the system. But will this new drive to criminalise parents and carers bolster the new Court or undo the good intentions behind the reforms and provide nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory for Britain's children?

As a phenomenon in its own right, criminalising parents for bad behaviour appears to be a growing trend, and shows no sign of slowing down. In 2012, more than 10,000 parents were jailed over their children’s truancy, and several cases last year saw parents imprisoned for failing to disclose the whereabouts of children involved in care proceedings.

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/trend-tracker-the-welfare-of-the-child-and-criminal-sanctions#.U7KQTvldWSq

According to the data, released under the Freedom of Information Act, in 2011, 12,777 parents in England and Wales were taken to court for failing to ensure their children go to school.

Of these, 9,836 were found guilty and sentenced – a rise of 7.5 per cent from the previous year.Two thirds – 6,438 – were fined; 473 undertook community service and 11 were jailed.

This compares to 2001, when only 2,243 were prosecuted and 1,845 found guilty and sentenced

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258709/Record-10-000-parents-year-convicted-childrens-truancy-Figures-rise-8-000-years.html#ixzz36WKIeD78

Behind the statistics lie a multitude of different scenarios.  For some parents, the only thing they can reasonably do for their children is to stand up against the system which would prosecute them. Here is one example: 

A mum has won a legal battle over not sending her son to school for a year – because he was too frightened to attend. The mum claimed her 10-year-old son was terrified after he was restrained by staff at a specialist school in central Lancashire and was too traumatised to go back.

Lancashire County Council prosecuted the mum for failing to ensure her son attended the school regularly, but a court cleared her after hearing evidence about the health of the boy, who is autistic.

The mum told Preston Magistrates’ Court her son had been dragged from an outside play area, locked in a dark room and on one occasion a teacher threatened to kick him. She told the court he was left suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after the incidents.

The Rainbow Autism Support group now plans to lodge a complaint with government. It is understood a tribunal will take place in September to establish the suitability of the school for the youngster.

A county council spokesman said of the magistrates’ case: "Taking parents to court over non-attendance at school is a serious matter which is only ever done as a last resort.

"However our aim throughout is not to punish parents but to ensure that children and young people attend school and receive a good education."

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/mum-wins-court-fight-over-keeping-scared-son-off-school-1-6708224

Mother of three extradited to the US

"A mother of three who has been living openly in Britain for 16 years after fleeing an allegedly abusive husband has been extradited to the US on charges of kidnapping their children."

"Eileen Clark, a 57-year-old American citizen living near Oxford, was handed over to US marshals at Heathrow Airport on Thursday."

"Charged with international parental kidnapping even though her three grown-up children support her, Mrs Clark will face a courtroom confrontation with her husband."

"Her supporters say it is yet another example of how Britain’s Extradition Act is unfair and is being misused."

"Liberty, which has represented Mrs Clark, said an emergency injunction to halt her removal had been refused just hours before she was flown to the US on Thursday."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681033/American-mother-lived-Britain-16-years-allegedly-fleeing-abusive-husband-extradited-US-charged-kidnapping-three-children.html#ixzz36fhwIttA

Social services disregard the law

Christopher Booker writes:

I can only now name both Haringey council (of "Baby P" fame) and the Musas, thanks to three very remarkable recent High Court judgments by Mr Justice Holman, which he ordered to be published on the Bailii court website, specifically allowing both the council and the parents to be identified.

Holman only came into this case at the end of a four-year long saga that had already been before more than half a dozen other High Court judges. What he had to decide was whether, as an earlier judge had ruled they must be, the five older children, now in different foster homes, should be allowed to maintain contact with the two youngest (who have been sent for adoption and whom Haringey wishes to be given new names). Holman discovered, first, that Haringey had secretly and blatantly disobeyed that earlier ruling, by last year breaking off the children’s contact for several months until, in December, they were allowed to meet for a final "goodbye session".

Holman repeatedly expressed his astonishment that the council had knowingly broken a court order in this way. But he was then even more astonished to discover that Haringey had managed to get the court website to remove the very judgment he had ordered to be published. In his own words, Haringey had, "gone completely behind my back", to persuade "Bailii to remove from the public website" the judgment that he had "deliberately placed" there, "pursuant to the practice direction of the President of the Family Division" (Lord Justice Munby, who has been valiantly striving to open up the family courts to "the glare of publicity").

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10946414/Judge-slams-Haringey-council-over-my-most-shocking-family-case-ever.html

There are many other instances when social workers have acted outside the law. For example:

Judge Gareth Jones blasted social workers who he said illegally withheld a nine-year-old boy from his mother

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675395/Judge-blasts-social-workers-telling-not-law-remove-nine-year-old-family-away-without-consent.html#ixzz36EGK8kZG

Two Edinburgh social workers were found in contempt of court for restricting a mother’s access to her children, against conditions set by the court.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2013/12/20/social-workers-found-contempt-court-denying-mother-access-children/

The Scottish Commissioner welcomes the announcement of more health visitors

Tam Baillie

Reflecting back on BBC `s Sunday debate about the named person to be introduced into Scotland in 2016, it was astonishing to hear Aileen Campbell, Children`s Minister, assert that the introduction of named persons would cut down bureaucracy and reduce costs. How can that be the case when an extra 500 health visitors are going to be phased in at a cost of £40 million in order to ensure that health visitors will be able to fulfil their role as named persons?

What extra work will they be doing?

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27897719

Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People has welcomed the announcement. He seems to believe that named persons will provide a service to children that they have a right to expect. What service - intruding, collecting and sharing private data?
"I have previously said that for us to be confident that health visitors could properly fulfil their responsibilities under the ‘Named Person’ proposals in that Act, more health visitors were urgently needed and this action will make a big difference.

It will make a big difference but there is sure to be more negatives than positives.

 

Jean Robinson from the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS) reported in 2005 how health visiting was increasingly dominated by surveillance, rather than support, with mothers being surreptitiously assessed for risk of child abuse at the first meeting. Failure to invite the health worker in when she appears at the door unannounced can be reported to social services. Mothers see this kind of behaviour as snooping and resent it.

 

"Research shows that mothers like, and find helpful, health visitors who treat them as equals, respect their knowledge and experience, and exchange ideas rather than impose their own agenda."

 

More and more health visitors are expected to screen parents for likely risk of child abuse and the health visitor who treats a mother as an equal is disappearing.  Jean Robinson believes that the roles of surveillance and support cannot easily reside in one person and must inevitably involve a betrayal of trust. 

In Scotland the extra 500 health visitors will screen for SHANARRI risk factors. Surveillance is mandatory. When it becomes more widely known, it will undoubtedly destroy the trusting relationship between health visitors and mothers once and for all. Some of the likely consequences of seeing the health visitor as a threat to the family are easy to imagine.

A woman suffering the `baby blues` after the birth of her baby will attempt to keep that to herself rather than go to her doctor for treatment. After all, the health visitor has access to her medical records and too many children have been taken into care for `potential` emotional abuse. A woman who is the victim of a domestic abuse incident will not call on the police because if she does the named person will be informed. Too many children have been removed from mothers for failing to defend their children from witnessing their abuse.

The ramifications are endless and none of them make Scotland a better place for children. It is a pity the Commissioner for Children and Young People lacks the imagination to figure them out.

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol16No3/HealthVisitors.htm 

ParentPort and ATVOD

 

From ParentPort uploaded by them 2011 and accessed 4 July 2014.

ParentPort (www.parentport.org.uk) has been set up to make it easier for parents to complain about material they have seen or heard across the media, communications and retail industries.

The website has been jointly developed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD), the BBC Trust, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and the Video Standards Council (VSC)/Pan-European Game Information (PEGI).

It has been created in response to Reg Bailey’s Independent Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood*, which recommended that regulators should work together to create a single website to act as an interface between themselves and parents.

What is Video on Demand (VOD)? They explain this on another web page:

By law, a VOD service is only regulated if it’s offering users "TV-like programmes" and is operated from the UK. Also someone must have overall editorial responsibility for selecting and organising the content to provide to users.

So services where users upload their own content – such as video-sharing sites like You Tube – would not be classed as video on demand and are therefore not regulated by ATVOD.

It seems ATVOD have recently changed their minds about that but then they have claimed that standardisation and regulation is an `evolving art.` That is, this not-for-profit private company is prepared to make it up as they go along. In recent times they have demanded that the UKColumn register with them and be subject to their regulations. The UKColumn responded by removing their videos from YouTube and are still live streaming.

Now, why would an organisation committed to safeguarding children by joining forces with other media regulators bend their own rules and come after the UKColumn who almost daily draw attention to the abuse of children - topics often ignored by the mainstream?

http://www.parentport.org.uk/News/launch