Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
OP posts:
Original poster
johnhemming · 05/06/2011 21:24

Its a bit novel complaining that I answer questions rather than complaining that I don't answer questions.

OP posts:
hester · 05/06/2011 21:25

Not at all, I'm just suggesting that if you're going to sacrifice your leisure hours to hang out with us on here, you might as well make yourself useful Grin

Original poster
johnhemming · 05/06/2011 21:43

There is, of course, the eternal google groups search which allows someone to mysteriously appear every time someone else types their name three times.

OP posts:
hester · 05/06/2011 21:50

So do you launch yourself on multiple sites (how many? I'm really intrigued!) then sit googling yourself all night?

Original poster
johnhemming · 05/06/2011 21:54

"all night" is a bit of an exaggeration. I think it is a good idea for politicians to engage with the citizens of the UK.

OP posts:
hester · 05/06/2011 22:00

Ah yes, which brings us back to what engagement means. Now that we're on bantering terms, John, I have to ask you: you do see, don't you, that your posting style (writing provocative, unsubstantiated statements then refusing to answer questions or engage in two-way communication) seriously winds people up and doesn't help your cause? Is this style a deliberate attempt to achieve - what? Or is it just the way you do things?

I'm not trying to get into a row here. I'm honestly interested in what you are seeking to achieve by operating in the way you do.

Original poster
johnhemming · 05/06/2011 22:19

I am quite happy to substantiate my statements within the limits of the law. If people want to have a bit of a rant that is up to them, but if they don't ask questions that are answerable then there is little merit in engaging.

What I also find is that at times once I answer the questions that people are asking at times people try to raise different issues (ie change the subject).

Still I am going to sleep soon and may not respond for some time after about 10.30pm.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 08/06/2011 18:17

Just seen a video of Ms Haigh in which she states why she went to Ireland. Apparently an MP told her that she would lose her baby if she didn't. I wonder if anyone can guess which one.

Original poster
johnhemming · 09/06/2011 12:22

In fact a local authority told her she would have her baby taken into care at birth.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 09/06/2011 14:05

A little evasive there. She's on youtube claiming that she left on your advice. Just to be clear, are you saying she's lying about this?

CoteDAzur · 09/06/2011 19:02

Why do you think the two events need to be mutually exclusive?

Local authority told her that her baby would be taken into care at birth, which is possibly why an MP told her she could relocate to avoid being separated from her newborn baby.

I'm trying to understand the reason for this hostility towards JH, and I can't.

Some people who we're being wronged by the system got help from an MP and kept their babies. Do you people have a problem with that?

CoteDAzur · 09/06/2011 19:03

JH, rather.

JimmyS · 09/06/2011 20:19

If the Council did tell her that it's odd that she didn't mention it. According to her the Council told her the child would be placed on the register and that it was Mr. Hemming who told her the child would be taken if she didn't run away. The strange thing is that this sounds very like a story posted here recently by another woman in a similar position which Mr. Hemming claimed was a fabrication. I thought he might like to comment on this one too.

I've no problem with her getting help from an MP, indeed I think it would be an excellent idea.

CoteDAzur · 09/06/2011 22:01

The stranger thing is, I can't find anything about Vicky Haigh on YouTube.

hester · 09/06/2011 22:13

That IS strange.

JimmyS · 09/06/2011 22:18

I'm not linking to it out of respect for this site as it refers to other matters subject to injunction. If you are trying to suggest I made it up then that's your prerogative.

CoteDAzur · 10/06/2011 14:57

Oooh, it is so disrespectful to link. That must be why nobody does it Hmm

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I am saying that I searched for "Vicky Haigh" on YouTube and came up with nada.

Original poster
johnhemming · 10/06/2011 23:17

The stats are quite clear. Of children who left care aged under 5 in 2010 about 2000 were adopted and 880 returned to their parent(s).

Hence if your child is likely to be taken into care and is an "adoptible commodity" (ie young and healthy) then the likelihood is that the child will be adopted - some after having got reactive attachment disorder as a result of being cared for by overloaded foster carers dealing with 3 babies.

An evil system that the government refuse to do proper investigation into. There was a debate on Thursday about this. It is the turning of a blind eye to the realities that concerns me particularly.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110609/debtext/110609-0003.htm#11060943000002

OP posts:
hester · 10/06/2011 23:27

[Sigh]. Here are the flaws in your post:

  • you say 'the stats are clear' to imply that they obviously support your interpretation. They don't.
  • younger children are more likely to be adopted than older ones, and you see this as evidence that they are being placed for adoption BECAUSE they are young. But as children get older, they themselves are less likely to want to be adopted. I've been told that over the age of about 7, most children find it a real struggle to accept new people as parents, and many prefer other arrangements.
  • your suggestion that children get attachment disorder because of poor foster care is just mischievous. Children are damaged before they get taken into care, you know: it's kind of The Why.

Only reason I'm bothering to respond is that there will be people reading this thread who might take your 'clear', 'hence' and 'realities' as implying that you actually know what you're talking about.

Grandhighpoohba · 10/06/2011 23:42

John, those stats are not "quite clear" at all. You can make a statistic say whatever you want. Perhaps 2000 were adopted and 880 went home to their parents because SS are getting it right and mostly removing children from parents who are incapable in the long term to care for their children. Perhaps most of the children who SS are involved with do not enter care in the first place, despite being "adoptable."

It is dishonest to deliberately cherry-pick information to suit your own agenda.

Here's a question that you can answer for us without breaking an injunction. What percentage of the total caseload of SS were adopted in 2010?

JimmyS · 10/06/2011 23:53

I'll take that as a "no comment" then.

zebbedee · 11/06/2011 00:19

JH that newspaper article is certainly disturbing. BUT it does not state why Vicky Haigh came on SS radar in the first place. Could you enlighten us as to why this lady is to have her baby removed. It simply cannot be for no reason at all.

Otherwise there would be a SW at the foot of the bed of every woman giving birth to whip their babies away to exceed their "adoption targets" and (was it you who said they get a financial reward?) increase their income.

Original poster
johnhemming · 11/06/2011 19:54

Here's a question that you can answer for us without breaking an injunction. >What percentage of the total caseload of SS were adopted in 2010?

There are children compulsorily in care. There are those in care including those on S20 (looked after children) and then there is the total caseload of anyone contacted by Childrens Services who has a file.

I am looking at the care state (compulsorily in care). In the year to 31st March 2010 4,700 children under 5 left care. 2,000 were adopted and 880 returned to their parents.

This can be compared to figures from scotland. 893 children ceased being looked after, 536 to their parents and 143 were adopted. The Scottish figures used to run at more like 50-80 being adopted. These figures include voluntary care. However, there is a clearly higher rate of adoption from care in England.

In 2009 and 2010 Scotland moved to having more children being adopted and fewer returning to their parents in part this was also as a result of more children being taken into care (and hence leaving), however. It is also still the case that children tend in Scotland to return to their birth families, but in England young children tend to be adopted.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 11/06/2011 20:07

Does this mean Scotland is now statistically "evil" too?

Grandhighpoohba · 11/06/2011 20:51

Missing my point there John. I know that you are talking about children who are in compulsory care. My point was that SS get involved with lots of families who have "adoptable" babies, but do not take the majority of them into care in the first place. Including these children in your statistics would paint a very different picture. From my research, in the same time frame, there were 607, 500 referrals to Children and families SS, and 4700 adoptions. Not very efficient baby snatchers, are they?

You are using statistics to claim that SS have an evil adoption agenda. I'm pointing out that you are not showing the full picture, and are only using stats which support you. Which is dishonest.