I am typical of my generation, in that I have become deeply disillusioned by parliamentary politics. Part of what I love so much about the Convention is that it’s extra-parliamentary in nature, while still welcoming Government and party political input.
I think the spirit of true democracy – inclusion and plurality – has become too rare in today’s ego-driven politics. Among so many other things, the Convention is a beginning to heal the fragmented efforts of a huge and diverse range of organisations and individuals ultimately working towards the same goal.
The Convention aspires to this ideal of inclusion and pluralism in a number of ways: by offering discounted tickets, by holding regional and national events in addition to the London one, by hosting speakers from all major parties, and some smaller ones, and by offering an Open Session to include issues and speakers who can’t be accommodated within the main programme.
I’m involved because there is space for me, and indeed anyone who cares about liberty, to be – no matter what party (if any) they affiliate themselves with, no matter what liberty means to them, how they want modern liberty to be shaped, or how they think it is best achieved.
I am vastly relieved to see organisations combining to confront this threat – at last. But better late than never.
In around 2000 when I first started raising similar concerns it was like being a voice in the wilderness. 2001. 2002. 2003 – not much change. 2004 the first glimmerings of public awareness … growing to No2ID, this Convention etc.
One major area I do not see represented in the range of campaigns represented, is the abuse of privacy and abuse of authority by Social Services: especially related to Child Protection.
Increasingly the media has exposed some of the most extreme cases. But what is perhaps far more a concern is the thousands and thousands of families who are routinely wrecked by this domestic terrorisation.
There is a problem here in that the organisations that support families being persecuted and misused cannot as charities engage in anything “political.” So they cannot join your project.
To be a parent in Britain today is to be peculiarly vulnerable. For “they” can do limited damage to us simply as persons alone: yes they can track us, harass us, invade us, injure us, occasionally kill us (especially if we are poor or black).
But that is nothing compared to having a beloved child taken away from you.
There are perhaps not so many cases of this injustice where the child is stolen forever. But the threat of it hangs over a great many. Few of us are unconnected to a family with children.
This is one of the worst areas of liberty abuse in Britain today.
A growing area of concern is the real fear families feel about going to a doctor, nurse or hosp[ital, or talking to a health visitor – in case it triggers a Child Protection investigation.
It is very far from true that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, because the agents of this system are so appallingly inadequate. Most are very young, childless, ignorant, poorly educated. The system is so overworked by poor management it has a culture of hysterical suspicion.
Families are being wrecked, all over the country, by abuses to their liberty.
For anyone who does not know much about this read on. Others may not need to.
———————————–
Take your child to the doctor for a bruise? A fall at school with a cut knee? A spiteful neighbour with a grudge makes a dishonest report? It can happen to ANYONE. Be very afraid.
“They” can investigate you based on any gossip, any suggestion however ridiculous or flimsy. There does not need to be any real evidence to trigger investigation.
“They” should tell you why they are meeting you. They often do not. You can face an investigation into something unstated. (see below for censorship of your file if you request it.)
“They” do not explain how the system works. So you may not only be facing an unknown charge, but doing so among mysterious, unknown procedures.
“They” do not tell you there are organisations that DO give information: Family Rights Group; False Allegations Support Organisation.
“They” should supply a copy of the Complaints Procedure. It’s pretty useless – a lot of foot dragging ending in not much but better than nothing. Often it’s not supplied.
“They” tell you they “just want a little chat.” But “their” meetings are put on record and affect the safety of your family – for years.
“They” will often strongly imply that you would be unwise to have a solicitor present, or an independent witness. Since you fear offending them you can easily be intimidated into obeying.
“They” frequently make mistakes in writing up reports. The mistakes ALWAYS reflect poorly on you, the family. Attempts to get the report corrected meet a blank wall.
“They” often break the law about Data Protection, supplying files that are way over the time limit; incomplete, improperly censored.
“They” can condemn you on one officer’s unsupported opinion.
That opinion might be that you are ‘over-emotional’ – perhaps you are terrified at how they misuse their power.
Their opinion might be that you are ‘cold, detached’ – perhaps you are striving to stay calm in the face of their tactics, or you are in shock.
Their opinion might be that you are ‘uncoooperative.’ What they means is you didn’t obey them – perhaps because you were protecting the needs of your child. It might be that you argued – not allowed.
“They” fairly often make bad mistakes of judgement, overlooking real abuse presented over a long time, or harassing innocent families who are easier to handle. Ten easy families ticked off looks better than one tricky one investigated.
“They” spend thousands of pounds on meetings that do nothing but record the same facts, or call for more meetings. Meanwhile quite basic needs a child really has go unmet for ‘lack of funding.’
“They” can remove a child into fostering very quickly, very easily.
The “Family Courts” that authorise their decisions are held in secret. You may only talk to your solicitor, a special adviser, or your MP – not your own parents, not a good friend.
The media are not allowed to publicise what happens in these weird courts as they do in proper criminal courts. So what Social Workers and their associated judges do is little known except to their victims. Secret.
Police can rule that they have no grounds for concern. Or the criminal courts or police procedures can sign you off as of no interest. That doesn’t stop Social Workres hounding you – because they don’t have to operate on facts and evidence.
“They” can have a child adopted within a year.
But it takes THREE years to get a Court to clear your name and declare you innocent. By that time the adoption is irreversible – cannot be changed. Your child is lost.
“They” are not held accountable. Many Social Workers proved to have started, maintained or added to the most terrible injustices, are STILL in their jobs.
British families are being terrorised. Especially if you are poor, black, unemployed, uneducated. If you are well off, well educated, well connected, you are a bit better able to fight them off – but it’s a terrible war that blights your life for many years.
You suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of it. Your child, ironically, suffers from seriously damaged parenting for about five years after you get free of “them.”
Children “helped” by Social Services have said on record that being in the Child Protection system is actually worse than the original abuse (Demos).
Whilst I would never want to minimise the potential for abuse and incompetence in the Social Services system (or any bureaucratic system), I have to say there is a fair degree of scaremongering in some of the above posts.
It might be worthwhile to remember just why we have a ‘Social Services’, clunky as it sometimes is. Perhaps some people would prefer us all to return to the kind of abject poverty, violence, and despair pictured so forcefully by Hogarth in the 18th C., and in literature by Dickens in the 19th.
Several times a month I sit in an office taking calls from people who are distressed about their personal situations or concerned about their neighbours and, rightly or wrongly, looking for ‘Social Services’ to provide some sort of guidance and help. The people taking those calls, and the social workers and others who are called on to follow many of them up, are ordinary human beings committed to doing the best job they can given human frailty and limited resources. Sometimes it all ends really well, sometimes it ends badly, mostly something gets sorted out and people move on until the next time.
We are all responsible for the society we live in and the means we have for dealing with its troubles and failures. As a society we have chosen to abdicate a large degree of that responsibility onto paid professionals. Feeling that it’s ‘nothing to do with us’ when they make mistakes or behave badly probably makes it easier to beat them, but it does nothing towards actually making our society a better one.
20090222 — Adair — adair90222@ — http://www.modernliberty.net/2009/do-our-politicians-understand-what-freedom-of-speech-means
Surely the concept of ‘free speech’ depends on the overall maturity of the audience/society that supports it.
A society that settles its arguments through blood feuds, assassination, poison, and duels may well purport to uphold free speech, but the consequences of speaking freely may very easily be suddenly fatal.
On the other hand, a society that reserves violence (or other forms of sanctioned oppression), only for those times when it is physically attacked is likely to make ‘free speech’ a genuine reality in terms of its consequences. Especially when it is determined to sort out disagreement and offence through argument and discussion (or by simply ignoring the fatuous and malicious).
Of course that demands a society that is not defensive or uncertain of its foundation values, and a general (though not necessarily universal), agreement over what those values are and what kind of behaviour they point to.
Clearly, our society has aspired to that kind of maturity, and to some worthwhile extent attained it. Whether we are in the process of adequately sustaining it, let alone extending it, is another matter.
NOTE TO MODS – please edit out the latter part of my post above. ‘Select all’ has its drawbacks!
Whilst I would never want to minimise the potential for abuse and incompetence in the Social Services system (or any bureaucratic system), I have to say there is a fair degree of scaremongering in some of the above posts.
It might be worthwhile to remember just why we have a ‘Social Services’, clunky as it sometimes is. Perhaps some people would prefer us all to return to the kind of abject poverty, violence, and despair pictured so forcefully by Hogarth in the 18th C., and in literature by Dickens in the 19th.
Several times a month I sit in an office taking calls from people who are distressed about their personal situations or concerned about their neighbours and, rightly or wrongly, looking for ‘Social Services’ to provide some sort of guidance and help. The people taking those calls, and the social workers and others who are called on to follow many of them up, are ordinary human beings committed to doing the best job they can given human frailty and limited resources. Sometimes it all ends really well, sometimes it ends badly, mostly something gets sorted out and people move on until the next time.
We are all responsible for the society we live in and the means we have for dealing with its troubles and failures. As a society we have chosen to abdicate a large degree of that responsibility onto paid professionals. Feeling that it’s ‘nothing to do with us’ when they make mistakes or behave badly probably makes it easier to beat them, but it does nothing towards actually making our society a better one.
[sorry if this is a duplicate, but the posting system here seems a bit quirky!]