John Wright Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I suspect the truth is that it has very little to do with human rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 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. Quoted for truth! Admittedly, not all children in care are in care because of a dysfunctional biological family backround, but it is probably true of a large percentage. And what strong, loving care do they receive under the current system? None, the care system seems designed more to cover backsides than provide the strong, loving, guiding care that most parents provide their children as second nature. I couldn't imagine not being able to check out my daughter's room if, say, I suspected drug use, but carers cannot; nor could I imagine not being able to effectively ground her as a punishment or to keep her away from something I believed to be contrary to her best interests; nor could I imagine not feeling able to hug her or kiss her to show my love, just in case the next thing I am hit with is some claim of sexual molestation! I am sure the best minds on the topic believe that these small quasi-family units are the way to go, but I really do have doubts that caring by rota is the best way of supporting children who, no matter what the reason for their situation, can only be viewed as vulnerable. It is a tricky one, and I don't have any answers. But, perhaps the way to go is to focus on preventing the problem in the first place; require parents of dysfunctional families to be chaperoned to address the causes, (and I mean one-to-one guidance for a period, possibly in a residential setting, not the wishy, washy social worker type approach that we now have). This may be seen as too 'nanny-state', but what we have now is a less than satisfactory system for the care of children which seems no more than a holding bay until they have reached an age when they become responsible for themselves and then everyone is off the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 . It is a tricky one, and I don't have any answers. But, perhaps the way to go is to focus on preventing the problem in the first place; require parents of dysfunctional families to be chaperoned to address the causes, (and I mean one-to-one guidance for a period, possibly in a residential setting, not the wishy, washy social worker type approach that we now have). This may be seen as too 'nanny-state', but what we have now is a less than satisfactory system for the care of children which seems no more than a holding bay until they have reached an age when they become responsible for themselves and then everyone is off the hook. Instead of a Nanny-State you want The State's Nannys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Very well said Gladys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 . It is a tricky one, and I don't have any answers. But, perhaps the way to go is to focus on preventing the problem in the first place; require parents of dysfunctional families to be chaperoned to address the causes, (and I mean one-to-one guidance for a period, possibly in a residential setting, not the wishy, washy social worker type approach that we now have). This may be seen as too 'nanny-state', but what we have now is a less than satisfactory system for the care of children which seems no more than a holding bay until they have reached an age when they become responsible for themselves and then everyone is off the hook. Instead of a Nanny-State you want The State's Nannys? May not be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 "A £400,000 house in a select residential area" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 There was a full page article on the meeting in this week's Manx Independent. The article states there were 52 members of the public there but I would suggest the figure was nearer 152 (there are about 80 people in the photo alone). That said, I was pleased to see I was in the picture. I am the grumpy looking one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 The more I think about it this is a good place for this home. Handy for buses to school, walking distance from Port Erin, but still not in the centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 The more I think about it this is a good place for this home. Handy for buses to school, walking distance from Port Erin, but still not in the centre. totally agree with you Declan. The other thing to consider is the positive effect that the children of current residents of this "select residential area" could have, they could be positive role models for these new residents of the area. If there parents let them mix of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 There was a full page article on the meeting in this week's Manx Independent. The article states there were 52 members of the public there but I would suggest the figure was nearer 152 (there are about 80 people in the photo alone). That said, I was pleased to see I was in the picture. I am the grumpy looking one. They all look grumpy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 They all look grumpy! Yep they certaiinly don't look in a reasoning sort of mood at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 They all look grumpy! Yep they certaiinly don't look in a reasoning sort of mood at all. They're just confused by having to listen to what is being said and mentally calculating the potential depreciation of their property at the same time. Its tough being middle class and angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Bit like patting your head and rubbing your tummy at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 They all look grumpy! Yep they certaiinly don't look in a reasoning sort of mood at all. Just be thankful they agreed to leave their burning torches and pitchforks in the burning torch and pitchfork stands, which you will notice are provided outside all village halls for these very occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I love sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.