To think this is a shocking waste of taxpayer’s money??

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v12dwddmwo.amp

Not the boy having some form of placement or help of course, but 300k for a little over 4 months! I’m sure this will be ‘controversial’ but I think we need to seriously rethink how much can be spent on just 1 person, unless (for example) they need round the clock nursing care to stay alive and specialist medical equipment of course.

Well it sounds like the placement worked and in the long term with saves the goverment a lot more money.

If appropriate support was put in place at the start of his issues they may not escaulated to this point.

I agree with the judge that private organisations should not be profiting but if the goverment and LEA are unwilling or unable to set up alternative educational provisions then this will continue to happen.

@plumclafoutis absolutely no way. You can’t undo a dysfunctional upbringing with a 4 month placement. I’d go so far as to say that within a couple of years the child will be back exactly where he started, and every penny of that money will have been wasted.

Baffled by this, at 16 I lived in a hostel with drug addicts and people just out of prison, got my first flat just before I turned 17.
17 isn't a child, you can legally marry and have your own children by then so why is there this requirement to support this person?

I completely agree with you. The whole thing needs overhauled as the private companies are gaining millions in profit because the government/councils are paying extortionate amounts on services. This could be streamlined to stop this but for some unbeknown reason it’s still outsourced. Same in the NHS there is so much waste that could be avoided

We all need to lobby our MPs day and night and legislation needs enacting to end private equity profiteering from vital services. It's obviously going to be a long road but work needs to start immediately to bring care (adults and children), education, transport, social housing and healthcare fully back into public control.

Private equity puts profit over everything else - quite why the fuck ANYONE thought it would go any other way god only knows. But, of course, the politicians who had most to gain from selling off public services knew it all along and spun us enormous lies about how much better everything would be in private ownership.

£289,000! What a crock of shit.

@OrangeeS there aren't enough state funded secure childrens homes. There's currently 14 in the Uk

It continues because so many politicians have a vested financial interest in raking in millions from their investments in privately-owned companies which provide public services via local government. Because they're greedy bastards.

That’s what it costs to provide care to severely damaged children at risk to themselves or others.

what do you suggest as an alternative

@Ticklyoctopus so you envisage a future dystopia where the ‘taxpayer’ would have some kind of vote (surely dependant on the rate of tax paid to make it ‘fair’) on whether or not a child’s life is worth saving (lives or dies) dependant on how much it may cost the taxpayer (in the private sector) to meet their needs. Why limit this to DC?

I know tax payers are a self interested feisty bunch but I’m not sure they are ready to be the death squad. Maybe if they are they have to do the killing themselves.

Where does it say that he's 17? Unless I've missed it but I don't think the link states an age.

You can't get married at 17 in England, that law was changed a few years ago.

This is the result of privatisation. If the care sector wasn't privatised it could be delivered much cheaper.
You say you'd be happy if it was round the clock care to prevent death. This may well be life or death, the boy is involved in organised crime which is really risky and without intervention there is a chance he will soon be dead, if not he will either be in prison or part of a group inflicting serious harm on others.
I've heard about a teenage boy having his hands chopped off when he tried to escape being criminally exploited.
Children in these circumstances need to be protected whatever the cost. The government and council do need to be looking at ways we can do that cheaper but right now there mustn't be a cheaper option

Surely the point is the hugely elevated fees charged by private providers. They are ripping off local authorities because they can. That is shameful.

That’s the point though, there should be far more, instead of all the money going to private companies making up their own prices.

Yep, just like the greedy bastards who owned my Grandmother's care home - they used to park their £150,000+ cars on the driveway outside actually BLOCKING the view of the sea from the residents lounge. The entitlement and arrogance was breathtaking.

Just reread, it was the OP who wrote 17 and near adulthood not the article so apologies- baby brain is a nightmare! I'm in Scotland so still legal up here (I think, could be wrong though) although I wouldn't want my kids marrying that young either way lol

It's unsustainable, a point the judge was subtly trying to make I think, but presumably it's also to prevent another Stockport kind of situation in the long term.

Completely agree. It would be like putting up one homeless person at a very expensive hotel instead of providing very basic state run accommodation to a large number.

hang on, hasn’t the government also been doing something similar… 🤔

But will it. Will he be rehabilitated in 17 weeks? Will him and his family cut ties and move to a new area? Or will he slip back into old ways after the 17 weeks?

The whole county lines thing is just awful but I’d wager for every child getting out, another will be recruited in. I can’t see four month “placements” making much of a change overall.

Wow, that is one hell of a reach on what I said, which was that tax money should be spent according to what taxpayers think is reasonable. I don’t think that’s a shocking stance to take.

Local authorities don’t have to use outside providers do they? They could develop centres that provide these services in house if they wanted and thought they could do it for less money. So if there really is profiteering going on there’s an obvious and fairly easy solution. But local authorities don’t seem to do that. I wonder why?

The question to me is more about whether this is a good use of money - do the course’s outcomes for people like this boy justify that sort of outlay (if it is very likely to stop him becoming involved in organized crime, it probably is) ? And could local authorities be more effective for their populations if they put the money the spend on these sorts of courses into providing proper support for children with problems in primary school?

Yep, you can still get married at 16 in Scotland. You used to be able to get married at 16 or 17 in England with parental permission but now it's from 18.

I'm not sure where the age has come from or that he's turning 18 in just a few months.

It is extortionate, but the answer isn't to leave highly vulnerable children without appropriate care. It's to make sure there is enough state funded appropriate care, while massively increasing earlier support and provision for families so that fewer children get to the point where they need it.

Exactly

But managing the issue will cost the tax payer a lot more than 300k if he becomes involved in organized crime. I think the question really is - how likely is that to happen (sounds like he already is from some of the details in that article) and how likely is this placement to stop it (very unclear)?

You're assuming that this short-term placement will "cure" him, then?

I'll put very good money on it doing no such thing.