Children should be cut loose from immigration knots

Any immigrant invariably of their immigration status, if they have dependent children above 5 years of age who are attending school should be the matter of concern to immigration authorities trying to implement harsh rules on their parents because indirectly the pressure of parents will have an effect on the children as well. For what fault of theirs are they being made alienated from the land they were born and broughtup. They know of only whats happening now and to leave a scar in their hearts at that tender age is impermittable. Govt. must change the scenario and do justice to young hearts out there playing merrily with their pals not knowing the authorities are to detour their fate any time as they wish.

Why is this idea important?

Any immigrant invariably of their immigration status, if they have dependent children above 5 years of age who are attending school should be the matter of concern to immigration authorities trying to implement harsh rules on their parents because indirectly the pressure of parents will have an effect on the children as well. For what fault of theirs are they being made alienated from the land they were born and broughtup. They know of only whats happening now and to leave a scar in their hearts at that tender age is impermittable. Govt. must change the scenario and do justice to young hearts out there playing merrily with their pals not knowing the authorities are to detour their fate any time as they wish.

Bring the education out of politics.

We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with  education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.

Why is this idea important?

We made the Bank of England independent of politics so why can't we do the same with  education. This mean there can be more continuity between different government's agenda. It would also stop the politicians using the essential service for political capital. I mean it's sort of silly when we have different governments messing with the previous governments policies. It's not good for our future if there education is in a constant state of flux.

Amendment to the Child Abandonment Law

Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted.  I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.

Why is this idea important?

Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted.  I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.

No state school may take parents’ religion into account as an admission criteria

Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.  

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.  

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Stop jailing parents for contacting their own children !

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Why is this idea important?

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Apply the precautionary principle to leave to remove cases

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Why is this idea important?

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Why is this idea important?

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Don’t let a few perverts strangle society

A mate of mine played Hockey for Redditch for 34 years and his son followed in his footsteps.  He and his whole family are  known to everyone in the club as part of the social fabric.  He would like to offer his services as a coach to the new breed of young hockey players but he can't without putting himself through some form of vetting procedure to ensure he is not a paedophile so he hasn't bothered.

My wife and I have 4 grandchildren.  The eldest will start school soon and naturally we will want to record the event on camera but we won't be able to in case we are actually more interested in all the kids around him for perverted reasons.  Oh by the way we haven't been able to record his first football lesson, visit to the library or swimming class.

In a Big Society as I understand it people know life has risks but we don't constrain the entirity of living for the worry of the very unlikely.

Don't accept the principle of fear that one childs death at the hands of a paedofile justifies laws or interpretation of laws that contrain the daily life of us all.  We will never stop perverts totally lets get back to living life for the benefit of the 99.9% rather than in fear of the .1%

Why is this idea important?

A mate of mine played Hockey for Redditch for 34 years and his son followed in his footsteps.  He and his whole family are  known to everyone in the club as part of the social fabric.  He would like to offer his services as a coach to the new breed of young hockey players but he can't without putting himself through some form of vetting procedure to ensure he is not a paedophile so he hasn't bothered.

My wife and I have 4 grandchildren.  The eldest will start school soon and naturally we will want to record the event on camera but we won't be able to in case we are actually more interested in all the kids around him for perverted reasons.  Oh by the way we haven't been able to record his first football lesson, visit to the library or swimming class.

In a Big Society as I understand it people know life has risks but we don't constrain the entirity of living for the worry of the very unlikely.

Don't accept the principle of fear that one childs death at the hands of a paedofile justifies laws or interpretation of laws that contrain the daily life of us all.  We will never stop perverts totally lets get back to living life for the benefit of the 99.9% rather than in fear of the .1%

Stop penalising middle income families.

Do not take away the child benefits of those on middle incomes. Middle income families need the child benefit to help pay towards child care costs and necessities. Middle income families are not scroungers. They are hard working people with jobs, who pay mortgages, etc. They don't receive any benefits apart from the child benefit, which is a god send to them. If you want to cap or means test child benefit, do it for those whose household incomes are over £55,000 a year. The child tax credit should have been capped at £50,000 not £40,000.

Why is this idea important?

Do not take away the child benefits of those on middle incomes. Middle income families need the child benefit to help pay towards child care costs and necessities. Middle income families are not scroungers. They are hard working people with jobs, who pay mortgages, etc. They don't receive any benefits apart from the child benefit, which is a god send to them. If you want to cap or means test child benefit, do it for those whose household incomes are over £55,000 a year. The child tax credit should have been capped at £50,000 not £40,000.

Allow cycling on pavements

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

Why is this idea important?

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

Remove Qualified Privilege

The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else.  (Definition courtesy of wikipedia).  Qualified privilege is frequently quoted as a defence by people reporting "concerns" about others or by public bodies to prevent [eg Child Protection] concerns being surpressed.  

Although the defence of qualified privilege may be defeated if the accusation is shown to be malicious, this is incredibly difficult to prove in court.  in practice what happens is that many, many frivolous concerns are raised wasting a lot of people's time.  There is no requirement for any substantiation to an allegation and knowledge that workers have this defence reduce the onus on them to be professional.  

False accusations wreck families.  Anyone can submit a referral for the most bizarre and weird interpretations of childrens innocent conversation without making any effort to engage further with the child to understand what was meant.  Once submitted, it can not be deleted, however incompetent the person who raised the referral.  Is this justice?

We must record acurrate statistics for the number of Child Protection referrals which are NOT investigated by Social Services so we can state the % of false accusationseach year.  Current Home Office Statics and (brilliant) false accusation support organisations estimate it to be around 40%. 

If the defence of qualified privilege is removed, then people submitting child protection referrals will require more than snippets of a child's conversation to accuse you.  They will be forced to be competent by statute. 

Fewer referrals will mean more resources to dedicate to the serious cases of child abuse, many of which have dominated the news recently. 

The measure of whether this has been achieved will be an increase in the % of referrals progressing to the next stage (case hearing) ie the dross is eliminated leaving Social Work only the [more] serious cases to concentrate on. 

Why is this idea important?

The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else.  (Definition courtesy of wikipedia).  Qualified privilege is frequently quoted as a defence by people reporting "concerns" about others or by public bodies to prevent [eg Child Protection] concerns being surpressed.  

Although the defence of qualified privilege may be defeated if the accusation is shown to be malicious, this is incredibly difficult to prove in court.  in practice what happens is that many, many frivolous concerns are raised wasting a lot of people's time.  There is no requirement for any substantiation to an allegation and knowledge that workers have this defence reduce the onus on them to be professional.  

False accusations wreck families.  Anyone can submit a referral for the most bizarre and weird interpretations of childrens innocent conversation without making any effort to engage further with the child to understand what was meant.  Once submitted, it can not be deleted, however incompetent the person who raised the referral.  Is this justice?

We must record acurrate statistics for the number of Child Protection referrals which are NOT investigated by Social Services so we can state the % of false accusationseach year.  Current Home Office Statics and (brilliant) false accusation support organisations estimate it to be around 40%. 

If the defence of qualified privilege is removed, then people submitting child protection referrals will require more than snippets of a child's conversation to accuse you.  They will be forced to be competent by statute. 

Fewer referrals will mean more resources to dedicate to the serious cases of child abuse, many of which have dominated the news recently. 

The measure of whether this has been achieved will be an increase in the % of referrals progressing to the next stage (case hearing) ie the dross is eliminated leaving Social Work only the [more] serious cases to concentrate on. 

ban injunctions preventing non criminal parents contacting their children

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Why is this idea important?

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Faith Schools

Maintained status should be removed from all faith schools.  It is offensive to a great many taxpayers that they should be subsidising the religious and cultural separation of our children in school.  Have politicians not learnt anything from Northern Ireland et al?

Why is this idea important?

Maintained status should be removed from all faith schools.  It is offensive to a great many taxpayers that they should be subsidising the religious and cultural separation of our children in school.  Have politicians not learnt anything from Northern Ireland et al?

Licensing live music

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Why is this idea important?

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Childcare and tax allowance

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

Why is this idea important?

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Not everybody is fit to have parental responsibility

To ammend the Children's Act so that all domestic violence, emotional as well as physical is recognised and that the perpetrators have only supervised contact with their children. 

Why is this idea important?

To ammend the Children's Act so that all domestic violence, emotional as well as physical is recognised and that the perpetrators have only supervised contact with their children. 

Restore Parents Rights To Detailed School Data

Ofcom school inspections used to provide parents with a wealth of factual data that could help parents see through wooly waffle and vague statements about "values" and "nurturing every child" and help parents decide if a school was good or not.

The right to this data has been destoryed with new simplified Section 5 reports. Restore this right now. At low cost schools could publish data every year. Or Ofstead could publish it for them. They already collect this data for the Government, so the extra cost would minimal.

Here is the information that I, as a parent, would look for when trying to shortlist schools or when considering moving to a new area:

Number of pupils (years 7-11 and sixth form separately), male and female numbers.

Number of teachers

New teachers in the year

How many established teachers have left

Teachers who have joined and left in the same year (staff turnover is an important indicator of an unhappy school).

Number of pupils who took every GCSE subject and numbers by grade band, by age or 1st attempt/2nd attempt (there is a huge difference between a school where most pupils take GCSEs in Hairdressing, Geography and Art at 16, bumping up the league table results, and schools where 14 year olds routinely sit Maths, and a third school where a minority of pupils sit hard subjects, and the same pupils resit once or twice if necessary to improve grades, but all three would score the same in league tables).

Number of pupils in GCSE points bands (do 10% of pupils get no GCSEs or 20%? Averages won't tell you that).

Ethnic breakdown of the school.

Class sizes.

Number of temporary exclusions and indication of how many pupils that refers to.

Number of permanent exclusions.

Pupil outcomes – number of Y11s gone on to further education categorised by 6th form in same school, Other 6th form, FE College, not gone on to further education.

        – number that have gone to University by rough Uni category (Oxbridge, Russel Group, middling, desperate, USA Ivy League) and subject or type of subject.

       – number employed / unemployed after 5 years.

by lessimon

Why is this idea important?

Ofcom school inspections used to provide parents with a wealth of factual data that could help parents see through wooly waffle and vague statements about "values" and "nurturing every child" and help parents decide if a school was good or not.

The right to this data has been destoryed with new simplified Section 5 reports. Restore this right now. At low cost schools could publish data every year. Or Ofstead could publish it for them. They already collect this data for the Government, so the extra cost would minimal.

Here is the information that I, as a parent, would look for when trying to shortlist schools or when considering moving to a new area:

Number of pupils (years 7-11 and sixth form separately), male and female numbers.

Number of teachers

New teachers in the year

How many established teachers have left

Teachers who have joined and left in the same year (staff turnover is an important indicator of an unhappy school).

Number of pupils who took every GCSE subject and numbers by grade band, by age or 1st attempt/2nd attempt (there is a huge difference between a school where most pupils take GCSEs in Hairdressing, Geography and Art at 16, bumping up the league table results, and schools where 14 year olds routinely sit Maths, and a third school where a minority of pupils sit hard subjects, and the same pupils resit once or twice if necessary to improve grades, but all three would score the same in league tables).

Number of pupils in GCSE points bands (do 10% of pupils get no GCSEs or 20%? Averages won't tell you that).

Ethnic breakdown of the school.

Class sizes.

Number of temporary exclusions and indication of how many pupils that refers to.

Number of permanent exclusions.

Pupil outcomes – number of Y11s gone on to further education categorised by 6th form in same school, Other 6th form, FE College, not gone on to further education.

        – number that have gone to University by rough Uni category (Oxbridge, Russel Group, middling, desperate, USA Ivy League) and subject or type of subject.

       – number employed / unemployed after 5 years.

by lessimon

Unfair deal for NQTs

NQT (Newly Qualified teachers) must complete an induction year of three school terms in order to gain their QTS and can teach in mainstream schools. The problem is that many NQTs have found it difficult to obtain a post which will help them complete their induction year because of lack of posts. Cuts in education and teaching jobs will make the situation worse. Many have turned to supply teaching, but cannot complete their induction within the specified time limit as it is difficult to obtain three consecutive term time posts. 

According to new rules introduced on 7th May 1999, they must complete this induction year within three terms or if they do supply teaching in posts which last less than a term, this would be a maximum of four terms. If they fail to meet this requirement they will not be able to teach in mainstream schools, although they will not lose their QTS. Short term supply placements of less than a year do not count towards the induction year.  Once they start on a short term supply teaching, the clock starts ticking and then the pressure is on to find other long term supply teaching posts within four terms.

It seems a waste of time having a QTS and not be able to teach in a mainstream school, because they have not fulfilled the requirements of a statutory induction period will not be eligible to work in a mainstream school. There is major lack of long term teaching posts for NQTs. There are many qualified teachers out there who have not been able to teach in a school as they have been unable to complete their induction.

Why is this idea important?

NQT (Newly Qualified teachers) must complete an induction year of three school terms in order to gain their QTS and can teach in mainstream schools. The problem is that many NQTs have found it difficult to obtain a post which will help them complete their induction year because of lack of posts. Cuts in education and teaching jobs will make the situation worse. Many have turned to supply teaching, but cannot complete their induction within the specified time limit as it is difficult to obtain three consecutive term time posts. 

According to new rules introduced on 7th May 1999, they must complete this induction year within three terms or if they do supply teaching in posts which last less than a term, this would be a maximum of four terms. If they fail to meet this requirement they will not be able to teach in mainstream schools, although they will not lose their QTS. Short term supply placements of less than a year do not count towards the induction year.  Once they start on a short term supply teaching, the clock starts ticking and then the pressure is on to find other long term supply teaching posts within four terms.

It seems a waste of time having a QTS and not be able to teach in a mainstream school, because they have not fulfilled the requirements of a statutory induction period will not be eligible to work in a mainstream school. There is major lack of long term teaching posts for NQTs. There are many qualified teachers out there who have not been able to teach in a school as they have been unable to complete their induction.

Trust well-known societies and groups to guide young teenagers

You need to repeal the legislation which governs children in AMATEUR entertainment fields.

Currently hundreds of operatic societies are prevented from allowing children under 16 to take part in their activities by a huge range of bureaucratic rules which different from county to county and yet these societies provide so many things which would benefit children and allow them to develop their potential:  I don't mean as entertainers – I mean as people.

There can be little more beneficial than for a child to experience the team work and family  spirit which permeates these societies.  They learn discipline, respect, attention to detail, courtesy to others and collective responsibility in an environment which is friendly and well-regulated.  Of course we must be careful that children are not explointed but, unless we make it easier for societes to receive them from 13/14 onwards, these children can so easily go off the rails.  Surely it's better for them to be at rehearsal under watchful eyes than standing on street corners drinking etc?

I've seen wonderful things happen when young adults feel accepted and relied upon as a member of a group – I've watched with joy as they have transcended their terrible home circumtances or been drawn out of depression.  We can do this (and, of course, so can many other types of society but my particualr expertise is amatuer drama, dance and music) and I know what it can do for children to feel involved in that special family atmosphere, working together on a common enterprise, making lifelong friendships, learning how make things, put up posters, channel their energies and  enthusiasms.

You need to lower the age on these restrictions to 13 or 14 and let us guide these youngsters as we will happily do.  Long-standing Societies of proven track record  should be allowed to assume collective responsibility for members under 16 and given the same exemptions as teachers.

Why is this idea important?

You need to repeal the legislation which governs children in AMATEUR entertainment fields.

Currently hundreds of operatic societies are prevented from allowing children under 16 to take part in their activities by a huge range of bureaucratic rules which different from county to county and yet these societies provide so many things which would benefit children and allow them to develop their potential:  I don't mean as entertainers – I mean as people.

There can be little more beneficial than for a child to experience the team work and family  spirit which permeates these societies.  They learn discipline, respect, attention to detail, courtesy to others and collective responsibility in an environment which is friendly and well-regulated.  Of course we must be careful that children are not explointed but, unless we make it easier for societes to receive them from 13/14 onwards, these children can so easily go off the rails.  Surely it's better for them to be at rehearsal under watchful eyes than standing on street corners drinking etc?

I've seen wonderful things happen when young adults feel accepted and relied upon as a member of a group – I've watched with joy as they have transcended their terrible home circumtances or been drawn out of depression.  We can do this (and, of course, so can many other types of society but my particualr expertise is amatuer drama, dance and music) and I know what it can do for children to feel involved in that special family atmosphere, working together on a common enterprise, making lifelong friendships, learning how make things, put up posters, channel their energies and  enthusiasms.

You need to lower the age on these restrictions to 13 or 14 and let us guide these youngsters as we will happily do.  Long-standing Societies of proven track record  should be allowed to assume collective responsibility for members under 16 and given the same exemptions as teachers.

Removal of Parental Responsibilty for Long term Prisoners

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Why is this idea important?

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own.