I think we have finally got JH on the defensive, even a touch "rattled" maybe. It's an unusual occurrence in my experience. Could be that he has no allies on the thread. Claig has fortunately been influenced by Martin Narey's claims that children are left too long with unsafe parents, rather than being removed and given the opportunity of a permanent and stable home afforded by adoption. Hence the coalition's "push" on adoption targets for those children in the care system awaiting permanent homes NOT JH - repeat NOT - targets for snatching babies for adoption.
Your post on 19.20 JH is as usual complete and utter nonsense. "Whereas in the past children would have been returned to their parents they are now adopted." Nonsense! The LA Children's Services have always had a duty to work with the parents in order to return the child/ren to their care so long as it was considered to be in their best interests - if this was NOT the case, then the LA have a duty to find permanent homes for these children. Firstly they have a duty to see if anyone in the extended family was suitable to offer a home to the child/ren. If this was NOT the case, then dependent upon their age and circumstances a permanent foster home or adoptive home would be sought.
You state "to take a child into care only needs reasonable grounds no evidence" that gets an ICO Nonsense! I realise you have not been involved in actually being in court in care proceedings, except on a rare occasion when you have acted as a McKenzie friend and some good you did as you were severely criticised by the High Court Judge. Conversely I have been involved (over a career spanning 30 years) in probably hundreds of care proceedings. The grounds for requesting a court for permission to remove a child are that the children is being significantly harmed or is likely to suffer significant harm (yes I know that last one causes you a great deal of anguish as you fail to understand what it really means)
Had you been involved in the 5 days or so set aside for final hearings you would know that every professional (who are not incidentally in the pay of the LA, and who certainly not don't fall in line with the social worker's view) has to evidence everything that is contained in their reports. Legal representatives for the parents cross-examine in a robust fashion (and I have no problem with this) and it is not unusual for this cross-examination to take 3/4 hours or more if necessary. Then the Judge makes the final decision (oh sorry I forgot he is in on the conspiracy as well isn't he)
Your para beginning "It is not unreasonable to allow state action on an interim basis.........." is such gobbled gook nonsense I am not going to attempt to decipher what on earth you mean.
WHY am I doing all this.............WHY don't I learn from the past.
You claim that your views on the horrendous Ian Jacobs is nothing to do with this thread, so you don't have to answer (you don't need to because Spero has provided evidence of your association with this reprehensible man) and yet you then keep repeating what Lisa Longstaff of WAR states - what has that to do with this thread.
WHY are you asking us to believe (even comment) on the opinion of one person about whom we have absolutely no knowledge as to her ability to comment in a fair and rational manner, or whether in fact she is similar to you and holds a deep mistrust of social services, and hence her comments (like yours) aren't worthy of our consideration.
And your association with Ian Jacobs and his views are nothing short of disgusting. We don't need you to answer - you already have. If Nick Clegg is happy for you to associate yourself with those views and remain as an MP then he is as big a coward as you.