Gladys Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 For what its worth, I think this approach to child care is fundamentally flawed in any case. What it does create, is little units where the only constant is the child itself, with a rota of carers bringing several 'one to one' relationships. It just strikes me as a compromise between the old institutional care and fostering, without the vital constant of a surogate parent. I don't know what the answer is, and I am not an expert other than having children myself, but there are times when I wonder if anything were to happen to me, just how well would they be cared for by a rota? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Thought about logically, to be worthwhile, it has to be a large house. say 4 children plus two overnight sleep in carers minimum. Thats the same whether its for orphans, kids whose parents cannot cope, kids inj trouble, mentally handicapped young adults in the community etc. Few houses, except "luxuryt" houses have that many rooms, with bathrooms etc to cope. Why should they go back to thye work house. Given that there are always groups that cannot be fostered, looked after one on one, we need this type of developmenst and any objection has to be nimbyism of the worst kind, however you dress it up. If it were that we needed planning for an extended ethnic family to move in it woulod be racism to behave like this. Not sure what the corrrect term is for the people of Surby, but they should be ashamed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 Nice article. But are you MCB? Do I win a prize for not criticising the spelling errors? Doh! No, not mcb. I am not a journo (as you might call them) but a common or garden member of the forum. When we start being picky on spelling (and grammar) errors, the forum tends to spiral down into murky depths of inaneness, but I do get your point. My original post has been a little amended and I retract a remark i made (rather than simply delete it) which I apologise for making in the first place. __________________________- Back on topic, Albert Tatlock makes a very good point regarding fostering children. I don't know if the figures quoted are accurate but I suspect the overall costs per child are far more. Perhaps a close caring community such as ours should be giving children a more stable family life through more fostering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The assumption - and it is a totally incorrect one - is that the children who are in care homes such as the one proposed are exclusively those who have been in trouble with the law. The fact is that many of these children are in care for their own protection. In some cases they're children who have been abused - physically, mentally or sexually - by vile adults; sometimes by their own parents or close relatives. (YES - such things DO happen on our 'Treasured Isle'!) Many of them end up with such low self esteem that they become 'self-harmers,' the ones who have to be watched because they will take any opportunity to hurt, or even kill, themselves. Taking drugs and drinking to excess become the ways that they can escape from the nightmare that their lives have been. Removing them from the temptations of the drink and drug culture which, however small, does exist in the Douglas area, is one way of trying to break through the cycle of self destruction that they are involved with. There are several of these small units, many of them in good residential areas, and they cause little or no problem to the nearby residents. The people of Surby should be thoroughly ashamed of their rampant nimbyism. Simply because they may have had the good fortune to enjoy 'normal' childhoods doesn't mean that they have the right to decry anyone who hasn't - and to reject them in this way is disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iom_cb Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 the key is to get these kids into foster care at a VERY YOUNG age ... before they get institutionalised. but the state if neccersary should not bring up these kids not on a low budget, but in a way that is best for the child. I bet these kids will feel really accepted into society should they hear of that stupid meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I missed all of that, even though I lived within less than half a mile of Leece Lodge and 200 yards of the Tromode facility. Never any problems. Well not with the kids. Nosy neighbours wanting to control and intrude, yes. I had the river running through my garden. I was constantly being pressed to join neighbourhood watches and sign petitions against the child care/detention facilities, even 'tho' they caused no problems. The posh neighbours from Tromode Park who threw rubish, household and garden waste over my fence down onto the river bank or who rang up, or even sent the police around once, because they had seen youths fishing the river "poaching" or throwing sticks at trees for conkers "criminal damage", well they caused problems. In the end one neighbour rang to advise me of an alleged act of vandalism. conkers again. I asked how he knew. "Oh I watch yoiur garden through my binoculars all the time" A quick suggestion that if he continued I would be reporting a peeping tom stoped it for a while. It really is double standards. And Surby is having a surfeit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Some excellent points being mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 In the end one neighbour rang to advise me of an alleged act of vandalism. conkers again. I asked how he knew. "Oh I watch yoiur garden through my binoculars all the time" Had he never been a boy himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Why not Surby? It's a big enough house in a place. I don't think it matters where it is. Why should these children live in 'less desirable' areas? How much were the incidents around Strang/Union mills down to the bloody useless staff and management? Unwilling or unable to do anything about these children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Its fairly remote and not an easy place to get to the shops etc from. I'm not saying these kids should live in less desirable areas just that property value and resale value are a factor when these organisations buy places, and half of the problem with these kids is boredom and its probably better they're housed centrally as they can get out and about easier. What does Surby offer by way of entertainment? Nothing and its a 2 mile walk to the nearest shop. Kids get bored, kick off, other people in the area notice. If they were in the centre of a town at least there is stuff to do. Maybe that's the idea, to keep them away from town. I mean ffs we are talking about children here not a bunch of axe murderers or an influx of aliens from another planet who plan to take over Surby then proceed to take over the rest world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith lard Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 MFS staff do now work for St Christophers, MFS staff had nothing to do with care homes in Tromode or Strang. They had nothing to do with any enquiry into child care provisions, it was the directors who were allegedly at fault, the staff of MFS worked hard and were dedicated and committed to looking after the young people in their care, so dont presume to blame MFS staff for any problems ! Hopefully these NIMBYS can get over this and allow this care home to go ahead, and if they do have a problem with their house prices falling, they can only blame themselves for drawing attention to this ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith lard Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Why do people try to become involved in issues that they know little or nothing about ? By slagging of MFS workers you are as bad as the people of surby, making assumptions about people when you know little about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I would say that the 'human rights' provisions are often contrary to the welfare of many of these 'looked after kids'. Parents have the ability to say 'no' and force their kids to do things against their will when the parent has that kid's best interests at heart, and it is done for love. Kids in care should have the same treatment, but it is not given. This means that the parenting deficit which put them in care persists in some ways. Case in point - the amount of kids from the 'secure' unit at White Hoe who harm themselves with razor blades, drugs, alcohol etc. Why is this still allowed to go on? Its similar to a case of the Lunatics running the Asylum. Staff are frightened to do the right thing I think. I can't blame people being apprehensive about care homes given the past and current record. I would however side with those who said that the Tromode facility was no trouble - it was the kids of the people playing football at Cronkbourne who cause most of the aggro and vandalism, and even that was fairly minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I would say that the 'human rights' provisions are often contrary to the welfare of many of these 'looked after kids'. I'd be interested to hear John Wright's comments on the HR aspect. Everyone has a right to be protected by the law, however as we all know laws that are in place to legitimately protect the rights of people being abused don't always tend to be used in this way. Rather than protect the rights of those oppressed by society nine times out of ten the HRA is used by an army of dimwitted chavs to either attempt to get compensation or to shit stir with government agencies or the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share Posted February 24, 2007 The meeting was kicked off by quite a long speil from Advocate Gerry Carter. He introduced the Human Rights matter. I have to say that I didn't undestand hardly a word that he said but it sounded quite good and was confidently delivered with a touch of humour to get the crowd on-side. It was actually quite a sit on the fence speeach and rather patronising, but I'm not even sure to which side. So yeah, er, Human Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.