Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

REMOVE THE TARGET AND BONUS CULTURE FROM OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

Why is this idea important?

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

Remove all ‘internal market’ constraints from public sector

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Why is this idea important?

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Removal of targets

Many Local Authorities and Government Departments are making the wrong decisions in order to achieve targets. The administrative and bureaucratic costs of administering targets is high and wasteful. Targets were a Labour initiative and should be abolished and replaced by good old common sense.

Why is this idea important?

Many Local Authorities and Government Departments are making the wrong decisions in order to achieve targets. The administrative and bureaucratic costs of administering targets is high and wasteful. Targets were a Labour initiative and should be abolished and replaced by good old common sense.