Take more babies away from bad parents, says Barnardo's chief

[bubblebutt]

Many more children need to be taken into care at birth to stop them being damaged beyond repair by inadequate parents, the chief executive of the children's charity Barnardo's has told the Observer

How you can you say that when they the parents don't know how they will turn out themselves till after the event

Martin Narey called for less effort to be directed at "fixing families that can't be fixed" and for social workers to be braver about removing children at risk .

what tosh some families can be fixed and yes some cant but come on that means all babies that are under the SS would be taken into care because he fears another baby P and that is so wrong on many levels. A lot of families out there are going to suffer because of this reporting.

After revelations about the neglect and dysfunctional background of two young brothers from Doncaster who viciously attacked an 11-year-old boy and his nine-year-old nephew, social workers have once again come under fire for failing to intervene at an early stage.

this is alleged neglect and abuse no one knows this except the kids and their parents SS have to do a report and have to get all their facts together BEFORE they can remove a child. This takes time not 2 minutes. Another reason mistakes are made as there isnt enough Social Workers.

The brothers, aged 11 and 10, had been known to social services and police for several years. Their mother had allegedly given them cannabis as toddlers and forced them to forage for food in bins, while their father was allegedly a violent alcoholic. Despite this, the pair had been taken into care just three weeks before the attacks. The case has led to Doncaster social services opening an inquiry, its seventh serious case review since 2004.

What do they expect the SS to do wave a magic wand and its all better it doesnt work that way.The 2 boys are damaged now and need help as much as the other boys do.

Calling for more children to be in care from the moment they are born, Narey, a former director general of the Prison Service and previously a permanent secretary at the Home Office, made clear he was not reacting to this case in particular, but to issues with Britain's child protection services that needed urgent attention to avoid failing many more troubled young people.

Yes he is and a lot of families are going to suffer because of it.

"If you can take a baby very young and get them quickly into a permanent adoptive home, then we know that is where we have success," he said. "That's a view that is seen as a heresy among social services, where the thinking is that if someone, a parent, has failed, they deserve another chance. My own view is that we just need to take more children into care if we really want to put the interests of the child first.

So some one struggling is going to leapt on and the child taken away all cos she isnt coping the way the SS want and some want you to go after there arses cleaning em when they are old enough to do themselves Oh there is SS like this out there or the one that comdemns you if you cant cook and give your kids microwave meals all the time or something out of a tin god forbid they do that,

"We can't keep trying to fix families that are completely broken. It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents. I have seen children sent back to homes that I certainly wouldn't have sent them back to. I have been extremely surprised at decisions taken. If we really cared about the interests of the child, we would take children away as babies and put them into permanent adoptive families, where we know they will have the best possible outcome."

If the family is beyond repair so be it but what if they have turned there life around and can get their kids back why take that chance away as some SS do just that. they seem to tar every bad parent with the same brush hence why the SS shouldnt be there after 3 years as it makes them jaded in what they see everyday.

He said he understood his views would be seen as "illiberal heresy": "I think if social workers were courageous and sought to intervene quickly, and were supported properly in that, we would see far fewer problems."

As above and also there would be a national out cry from parents that have done nowt wrong but asked for help to be told they are neglecting their child(ren) when they clearly need help to be a better parent. Not penalized this way.

While foster care was on paper a good option for older children who had to be taken into care, he said, a shortage of suitable placements meant that children were suffering from a lack of stability. "What troubles me is the number of children I meet who have had vast numbers of placements. Last week, I met a 15-year-old girl and her foster mum. It was her 46th placement. The woman said that whenever there was a row or disagreement, the girl went to pack her bags. She expected to be sent on.

there isnt enough foster parents in the world as they are told to see the foster side as a business and it so isnt its helping and nuturing and caring for a child that needs your help

"It is undoubtedly a good option when children have been taken into care to replicate the family in foster care placements, but I have spent the past four years meeting a lot of children in care and I can tell you that it is by no means anything out of the ordinary to meet a child whose foster placements run into double figures. There comes a point where we have to accept that it is not working."

As above

Philippa Stroud of the thinktank Centre for Social Justice reacted cautiously to Narey's comments. "If the model is to move children very quickly to adoption, not necessarily from birth but certainly under a year, then that is something we would support," she said. "We need far more early intervention to try to stop this disintegration of the family we are seeing, but we would like to see more working with these families. What we recommend is the model of the mother and baby going into care, filling that hole and giving the whole family a chance. "With child protection, all the legislation is actually in place: it's the implementation that is the issue."

So if this is the case why do we see baby P stories all the time. I feel that the child protection and SS should be overhauled and the government needs to bring in more and they shouldnt be allowed anymore than 3 years in that field and then moved on if they wish to return they have to wait 3 years to do so. Also the work load of a SS shouldnt be anymore than 5 families and this is for full time workers not the part time.

The numbers of children taken into care rose slightly following the death of Baby P, the 17-month-old boy later named as Peter Connelly, who died in London in 2007 of injuries inflicted by his mother and her boyfriend, despite being seen repeatedly by doctors and social workers. But Narey says it was only a temporary increase.

How many of these babies, children whom parents hadnt done anything wrong really to their children and they where taken because of the mistakes of another SS office hmmmm that worries me more.

"As soon as these cases recede from the memory, everyone will get reluctant to move these children all over again. Only 4% of children adopted from care in England are under the age of one and the figure is even smaller in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I for one hope it doesnt recede from memory as we need to be reminded of baby P and the others out there that their own parents didnt give a stuff about them. We need to address these mistakes and take stock and agree we where wrong. Not hidding behind we did nothing wrong and it wasnt our fault crap. If known abuse of any kind you amass your info and remove the kids. Not this wishy washy oh we didnt see this or that or she wouldnt let us in crap either. Also if on the "at risk registrar" they should visit more than once a week or what is the point of being on the registrar in the first place. Also no written warnings either. They should just turn up on the door. Again this would mean a full over haul of the SS departments all over the world.

"Less than 5% of the children taken into care in England last year were aged under a year old. Some 3,500 children were adopted in Britain from care, at an average age of four."

This is to do with the birth parents wanting their children back and fighting the SS over it and it takes on average a year to go to court with all the evidence they have against the other to proceed and sometimes this can be stopped if the paperwork isnt done right. Also the parents themselves could have turned their lives round and can show they have so this again hinder any proceedings. Also the SS could be dragging their heels too as one SS could be busy on other cases so it is again delayed. Not good for the child is it.

I copied and pasted this as its the article of said subject and it has angered me the silly man he is. I have added my own bits to it and wondered what you all thought.

"here itthe piece"

I've pasted this quote for the benefit of Nina

"welfare officers are very powerful people, and it is not a good idea for any party to get the wrong side of the welfare officer. And clients often do. I know that the reporter is supposed to rise above pettiness and deliver an unbiased report, but they are only human, just like the rest of us."

"The position is even more difficult in public law cases. Anyone whose children become the subject of applications for care or supervision orders will have a battery of social workers and other experts to contend with. Such cases usually start and often finish in Family Proceedings Courts, manned largely by lay magistrates and the occasional district judge. The applicant is almost invariably the local authority, and from the point of view of a parent, they wield a very big stick. If you are a parent and you disagree with the opinion of the local authority, you can be sure that there will be a report suggesting that you "are not able to prioritise the needs of your children"."

i know it is not on to post about other posts but i have just seen another post in chat with 'sensitive - about child abuse' in the title - and people are posting in disbelief that something like this could happen. i have worked with many people, adult survivors and children, with very similar experiences. i think that people generally find it difficult to comprehend that there are parents out there who do not love or care for their children. i do not mean that in a patronising way - it IS difficult to understand, but it is unfortunately not uncommon.

when people say they want social services to be open to 'public' scrutiny is this what they mean? they want the details of the alleged abuse? they want the victim statements? i don't understand it, i really don't know why anyone would want to know the details unless absolutely neccessary.

there are checks in place, as wahwah has previously posted. in addition to this individual social workers are bound by a code of practice, any alleged breaches of this code are investigated by the gscc and scoial workers can now be struck off and barred from practice.

i would strongly suggest that anyone with a grievence against an individual social worker (i know riven has posted saying she has had negative expereinces) should complain. each LA will have a complaints procedure which must be followed (this includes the LA responding, in writing, within prescribed timescales - they cannot ignore the complaints). if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the LA complaints procedure you can complain directly to the gscc (details on their website under the 'conduct' heading).

if you feel that a social worker has acted unprofessionally then please do something about it.

social services departments, and independent organisations e.g fostering agencies, are regularly inspected - the process is not perfect (usually resulting in socail workers being given more uneccessary paperwork to complete) but it is there.

there is another thread in chat at the moment where someone has concerns about a child but is reluctant to report their concerns to ss.

i have seen this a lot on mumsnet and it makes me incredibly sad that threads like these may well contribute to people not reporting their concerns.

as i have said before - i do not have a problem with people questionning what social workers do. but i do not understand what the posters here are hoping to achieve by continually slating social work, and the social workers who have tried to respond, on this thread. what are you actually doing about the imperfections in the system? what are you doing to try to protect children and other vulnerable people in our society?

please do something constructive - even if it is just using the proper complaints procedures when you have a grievence.

Thanks Someguy.

I too have no contact with social services or related agencies, either in personal or work capacity.

I have been uncomfortable with nina's posts on this thread, in a way I cannot say about other social workers on this thread. But you have managed to articulate why. It is the underlying message that nina is caring, knowledgeable, tireless in her support (she probably is), but she is never wrong.

I don't know if you are aware of this, nina.

Much as you have been terribly dismissive of johnhemming and others on this thread who disagree with you, I am glad for johnhemming and others who hold people in your position to account.

I am still not convinced that social work is subject to any credible form of public scrutiny.

'I hear many of you slamming S/W i was just wondering how many of you actually had a family member or friend who was a S/W?? '

Yup. He's no longer a social worker because he couldn't cope with the attitudes of colleques towards disabled people.

nananina said 'Dittany and Riven - sorry but you both sound quite unpleasant and bitter individuals and I can only assume that your views and attitudes are rooted in something deeply personal for you. I actually feel quite sorry for the social workers who have to work with you. I don't want to engage in any further debate with you as I think you are only interested in "scoring points" particulalry with anyone who posts who happens to be a social worker. Further enagagement with you is actually fuelling you to make further insulting comments and airing your prejudices from a position of unenlightenment.'

Clearly you haven't read my posts. I am recounted my personal experiences of social workers. When you have a sick child you have to have a SW to acess respite. Thats why I have contact with them. What I said about our experiences is true. I could tell you how they have treated froends of mine with disabled children too but you wont listen.
I have nothing against social workers but expect them to do the job they are paid to do properly and without personal prejudice. But it does appear that having expectations like that, rather than obeying and being grateful is taken as 'having deep rooted problems'
How is experince at the recieving end 'unelightenment'? You know nothing about me or my professional qualifications. you just don't like hearing the truth.

Ceres, when I say I want public scrutiny, it is not because I want to read details of abuse (if I never read anything like that I would be happy). I think concerns about prurience are completely overblown.

It is to know the basis on which a decision is made by a court eg whether to remove children or to approve an adoption. For this to work, the facts of the case have to be known, together with reports from doctors and other experts, how independent they were, were there conflicting opinions and how that was resolved or not, were the parents allowed to present conflicting expert opinion and if not, why.

It is not just scrutiny of social workers but all professionals and experts in the process.

As dittany said, it was only after the so-called expert Roy Meadows' profound statistical fallacy 'one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder' was challenged in open court in Sally Clark's criminal appeal, that his quackery was exposed (too late IMO) but not after many many loving families were hurt.

As for disciplinary proceedings and procedures you described, that is reassuring. But then I read about cases of whistleblowers, like the social worker in Haringey pre-Baby P, being sacked, and then threatened by the social workers to have her own daughter removed on a flimsy excuse, does not fill me with confidence. And another thread I recall of an mn, also ex-social worker, who was threatened with the same thing. Then the Times article linked to earlier about social workers threatening removal of children for not following doctor's advice.

It is obvious now why anyone would want to involve social services at all. If they even eat their own young with impunity, what chance does an outsider, with little resources to negotiate the system, have?

And high profile failures like Victoria Climbie, Baby P and Doncaster boys.

I am just giving the public's perception of social work (justified or not), and why there is a lack of confidence in social workers. The impression of family courts is that it is a secret court dispensing secret justice and gagging parents does nothing to dispel this public relations disaster.

CERES - are you really serious?

CERES I find it incredible that you could even question why the public are interested in public scrutiny.

Did you read the family law article?

Social care inspectors investigated a whistleblower?s warning that children were at risk in Haringey and cleared the council of any wrongdoing five months before the death of Baby P. Other reports were issued to show that procedures were supposedly followed.

The public are tired of hearing that correct procedures have been followed when a child died in agony. The public also have a right to know when injustice is done through the family court system.

The public have a right to know about the secrecy and the systematic concerns about the social welfare of children. The public have a right to know about the reliance of so called experts, and the dire consequences for children and families when these experts get it wrong.

I have read on this post about SW's with heavy case loads - if they can't take personal responsibility and are taking on too much work - then the public have a right to know!

The checks in place are simply not working - isn't it obvious????

Nananina misunderstood my point, but it was reiterated by EldonAve.

Expert witnesses are appointed by the judge in theory on behalf of parents and the local authority.

It is contempt of court for parents to instruct their own expert without the permission of the court.

It is this dreadful procedural tactic that gives all the control to the local authority - which already knows all the experts.

On the continent there ia a court appointed expert to look at expert issues, but parties are allowed also to get their own experts to argue with the court appointed expert.

It is the inequality of arms that leads the system to making flawed decisions systematically.

Hence all the mums on the run etc. Over the past week I have been made aware of another one in Turkey and a couple preparing to go from England to Ireland to have their baby. Their previous one has been put up for adoption .... you guessed it .... because of allegations of Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy.

It hasn't gone away.

and sorry just to clarify I have still not read anything to convince me that sw's are open to proper scrutiny.

On the issue of the openness of the courts. It is only the old commonwealth jurisdictions that I have any information and I am not sure exactly what it is, but the openness varies.

My own view is that there is a need for a retrospective scrutiny of the court proceedings. The 2009 changes went some further way down that track, but what we need is the facility to publicly discuss the merits of the arguments. That is because the big problem lies in the court of appeal where they are turning down appeals in the interests of protecting public confidence in the courts.

It should be up to the human parties whether the scrutiny is anonymous or not.

snapples - then i suggest that the concerned public bloody do something about it other than ranting. people can complain if they feel they have cause to, people can join organisations that help to influence and shape policy, people can train to become a social worker and try to effect change from within the system.

i have never suggested the system is perfect - it is far from it. i really have nothing more to say. the discussion at this stage is going round in circles so i am going to go and enjoy what is left of the weekend.

NanaNina Sat 12-Sep-09 23:55:33 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"Dittany and Riven - sorry but you both sound quite unpleasant and bitter individuals and I can only assume that your views and attitudes are rooted in something deeply personal for you. I actually feel quite sorry for the social workers who have to work with you"

Nana, as you may remember, I expressed my admiration of your first post. But with your later posts I have to agree with SomeGuy: you are not doing your profession any favours.

I have followed Riven's posts in the Special Needs forum over a matter of years and have always been very impressed by her insight and strength in fighting for her daughter. In this thread she has done nothing worse than enumerate a number of instances where social services' care for her went wrong: this should not label her as a bitter and unpleasant person.

I have always have favourable impressions of the social workers I have come across RL. They seemed to me sensible and level-headed people. But when I hear them online or in the press trotting out the old "damned if they do, damned if they don't"-line, then I think to myself "here is a person who is so busy feeling sorry for themselves that they are not prepared to learn from any criticism coming their way". And that seems to me a dangerous attitude for any professional.

John Hemming - independent assessors are not "always known to local authorities" at all. I have never had any prior connection with social workers where I have been appointed as an ind. assessor. Neither does the la have any say in this appointment - it is made by the court.

There have been several mentions of parents being "gagged" which is not the case. Parents are (quite rightly) represented by solicitors and barristers in court and believe me they spend hours and hours cross-examining social workers (be they independent or not) which again is how it should be.

As for the people who are criticising me, then so be it. I do not perceive myself as an "expert" in any sense. It's just after 30 years in the job I think I am in a more enlightened position than others who are not. I would not dream of making such criticisms and proclomations about an area of work in which I had little experience. It just annoys me that people feel it fair game to make such damming comments when they really can't understand the job and all that it entails, in the same way that i could not understand others jobs/experiences.

Re all this stuff about openness inthe courts. Has anyone thought that the CHILD at the heart of care proceedings has a right to have information about his/her life kept confidential. Do people really think they have a right to read highly confidential material about a child's life andthe alleged shortcomings of the parents. Would all these people wanting this sort of open-ness feel OK about having such intimate details of their lives open for all to see. I think not. And given some of the prejudices aired here and misunderstandings I am very relieved that these matters are kept confidential.

I shall be leaving this thread now as I am in court all next week as an independent assessor and the case is scheduled for 5 days. Need to spend the rest of the day in preparation. And would you believe my recommendation is that the single mother in the case should be given a further opportunity to parent her child,though of course that will be the decision of the Judge. Mind if it goes my way and then that child turns out to be another Baby P - well what then................it requires the Judgement of Solomon. I agree with whoever said that these people slamming social workers should spend a month trying to do the job themselves and I think they might be surprised.

thanks for that Cory. Although as a 'unpleasant individual' (would that be someone making a judgement?) I should probably throw sausage rolls and fruit shoots at you and run away going bwahahahahaha

Nana, as far as I am concerned, you lost it when you jumped to the conclusion that because Riven was critical of sw's she couldn't possibly have any real experience or know anything about it.

It's the level of your reasoning, not any preconceived ideas about social services, that has made me draw my breath in at this thread.

The gagging of parents relates to being able to complain publicly in detail about what happened to them.

I accept from time to time that the LA does not know all the experts, but most of the time they do.

Rosie Varley, the chair of the GSCC has stated that she is astonished that a new graduate can be immediately qualified as a social worker and can work unsupervised.

One could qualify as a social worker without any experience of child protection, or even of working within a LA, and have a full case-load of child protection cases upon appointment.

Does anyone else find the comments from the Lord Laming (12 March 2009) alarming.

The number of calls to LA's and children's charities actually increased following media coverage ? all the more reason to have proper public scrutiny in place.

Nana and Ceres for your benefit I am going to tag some sections from the link that I asked you to read....
Nana stated:

"Has anyone thought that the CHILD at the heart of care proceedings has a right to have information about his/her life kept confidential."

Ummm .... yes that is one reason why I posted the family law article and case for you to read and ask that you read it. As you have not demonstrated in your postings that you have taken on this information I am going to post sections from the judgement...

Oldham MBC v GW & Ors [2007] EWHC 136 (Fam)

This is not a case where there is 'no smoke without fire', this is a case where a family court and the expert who advised it got it wrong. The parents have no case to answer but their son spent 12 months of his very young life away from their care while the family courts acted to correct the error. K's parents deserve an explanation as will K when he is older. It is not surprising in these circumstances that there are lessons to be learned.
Leading counsel for all of the parties to the proceedings have invited the court to give a judgment in open court and to investigate why the processes went wrong so that similar errors might be avoided in the future. As Munby J. remarked in Re B (a child) (Disclosure) [2004] 2FLR 142 @ para [101], it would be complacent of us to assume that miscarriages of justice do not occur in the family justice system:

"we must be vigilant to guard against the risks and we must have the humility to recognise and to acknowledge the public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice... We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the Family Justice system... open and public debate in the media is essential."

The force of those remarks is demonstrated by the facts of this case:
i) K was separated from his parents for 12 months; 
ii) The parents bore an almost intolerable burden of being unjustly accused of inflicting serious injury on their infant son; 
iii) The parents experienced the nightmare of what has transpired to be a false finding by a court. They lived for 12 months with the opprobrium and suspicion of friends and neighbours;
iv) On finding herself pregnant during the course of proceedings the mother decided to terminate that pregnancy, unable to face the inevitable separation from her baby that would have followed from such serious findings. I am told that just as she grieves the loss of those many crucial months with K she carries an additional loss of another potential life.

As for the people who are criticising me, then so be it. I do not perceive myself as an "expert" in any sense. It's just after 30 years in the job I think I am in a more enlightened position than others who are not. I would not dream of making such criticisms and proclomations about an area of work in which I had little experience. It just annoys me that people feel it fair game to make such damming comments when they really can't understand the job and all that it entails, in the same way that i could not understand others jobs/experiences.

Oh FFS. You are NOT in a more enlightened position than Riven, whom you have never met, with respect to her experiences with her children and social workers that you have never met.

What gives you the right to say that, because you are so 'enlightened', that anybody who criticises behaviour by any social worker, even if you have no idea what that behaviour is, must be wrong, and the social worker, who may or may not be competent/reasonable, is right? How dare you make these judgements.

And I can't believe you are still coming out with this crap:

Has anyone thought that the CHILD at the heart of care proceedings has a right to have information about his/her life kept confidential. Do people really think they have a right to read highly confidential material about a child's life andthe alleged shortcomings of the parents.

No child has been identified in this thread. So yes, people should have a right to discuss anonymous case histories. Why on earth not? I can only imagine it is because you believe you should be above scrutiny, because that is the impression you keep giving.

snapple - i really fail to see what you want me to say. if you read back over my posts i think you will find i have said nothing unreasonable, i have not insulted anyone nor become personal when i have disagreed with anyone's comments or opinions, i have made suggestions as to how people might contribute to trying to change the imperfect system that we have in place.

i still have to work in the system and, actually, i am good at my job. i am not unwilling to challenge other professionals, i have reported bad practice on many occasions.

having a generalised discussion about social services is fine, but please don't patronise me - i have done nothing to deserve it (and your comment 'for your benefit' IS patronising).

I think I will leave this thread. In my experience arguing with a social worker gets you into hot water and nasty letters with threats to remove your children.
They don't like being called wrong.

Having spent four years inside the family courts (private law case) with cafcass, guardians and sw's and helped numerous people who have also been dragged through the court (public and private law) I can say that the herd mentality of these organisations is disgusting.

SW's (and cafcass) are always right, even when they are lying and proved wrong with evidence ( documented or tapped) and the judges will whitewash over this (most times) occassionally they may be 'spoken' too about their behaviour.

As for the poster who said make a complaint; the last thing anyone should do when they have an active case is to make a complaint, this will make the ss close ranks and you will stand absolutely no chance of getting justice, you will be hounded.

Another poster said about the threats of removing children; yes this is a well known documented (tapped) fact that the ss (and cafcass) will use the threat (and sometimes carry through) on getting your children removed.

The ideal senario for the family courts would be the same as the criminal justice system, because let's face it, criminals are only losing their liberty, parents in the family courts are losing their children, for life, once those children are adopted you are never going to get them back.

There should be a jury, not just a judge, the evidence should be presented and the parents should be allowed to have there own experts to rely on, any sw found lying (which often happens) should be subjected to the same perjury charges as would apply in an open court and the child psycologist (under the pay of the ss) should actually have to have contact with the person they are reporting on (which doesn't happen now).

Precognative crimes ( may and might at some point in the future) should be dismissed and the crime of emotional harm should be defined in black and white not just little johnny didi not keep his dental appointment.

If your child were being taken away wouldn't you want a proper trial to determine it's fate and not a behind doors, herd mentality, rubber stamping judge?

Ceres my comment to you asking if you read the family law posting was not meant to be patronising in any sense.

I had asked you if you had read the family law article - as I thought it presented a strong counter argument to your suggestion to make and raise formal complaints, and you had not responded.

Atlantis, your experience is very disturbing to read.

I agree that the family justice system (at least in cases of removal of children) should move towards the criminal justice system as the procedure and outcome (re: stats quoted by johnhemming) seems to be unfairly weighted against parents, much worse in the case of parents with learning difficulties.

It's the attitude that a social worker is bound to have a more enlightened understanding than the parent in the case that disturbs me.

As dd's parent I knew a lot more about her case and her particular problems than any social worker could possibly have done. I had also read more medical papers from repsected peer reviewed journals on her condition than any of the medical professionals I ever came across. Not because I have an unhealthy obsession with matters medical (supposed to be a sign of Munchausen), but simply because I had to deal with these things day after day.

Fortunately, I never came up against a social worker who believed her profession put her into some unique "enlightened" box: the ones I spoke to were always happy to accept that other people might know more than them about any one particular aspect. And they all seemed to accept that when it comes to how a family is affected by a problem, the members of that family are going to be in a unique position to know.

Am also totally at the attitude that John Hemming should stay away from this problem, because he is only a politician so can't possibly understand the ins and out of it. If politicians aren't supposed to get involved in the law and how it is applied, then what are we paying them for? They make the things, they've got to keep an eye on how they actually work out. Or are they only supposed to be interested in tittivating their expense accounts?