Social work/care must respond with one voice to the letter from the minister for women and equalities, to the Ofsted chief inspector - designed as an intentional strategic disruption

[IwantToRetire]

We are sure Kemi Badenoch would agree that this was designed as an intentional strategic disruption.

Superficially it is an enquiry about a single issue. It is much more than that.

It is a bunker buster of a missile; these are designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep. This is not solely an issue about sex and gender identification.

The serious and wider intent is shown in the letter.

The collateral damage is that if her view is upheld then it applies to all regulated services involved with learning and upbringing. The bunker buster works at structural and foundational levels.

The very definition of ‘corporate parenting’ upon which our current legislation is constructed is placed into jeopardy. It is yet to be made policy but is implicit in the Care Review that the State is not seen as having a place in the upbringing of a child.

The political dimensions of the concepts that underpin the Care Review have not been critically appraised.

This is not a single issue. It is a wedge to be driven deeper. This is a professional issue. It requires all roles and tasks in social work/care, all sectors, all organisations to speak with one voice to protect all that has been gained for vulnerable children.

Extracts from https://www.cypnow.co.uk/blogs/article/minister-s-letter-over-identity-issues-is-a-social-work-issue

I dont understand some of what is said in the article but may make more sense to those invovled in care/social work.

But seems to be written from the view point (like Wes Streeting) that the letter is part of a Tory plan to challenge views they dont like.(?)

However I was concerned to read from the Guide to Quality Standards that “This must meet needs and promote welfare, defined as “gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural and linguistic background, sexual identity, mental health, disability, assessed needs…” which shows that this Guide (as in other sectors) has chosen to ignore the reality of biological sex and instead referred to gender, which is a conception / perception rather than a fact. Would have thought care work of all areas would need to take into account the impact of sex.

Yes we keep hearing a lot about how everyone should conform to the one voice they are told to have, which is often achieved by excluding, silencing and being thoroughly vile to anyone who has something else to say.

We've heard plenty from social workers with very serious concerns about the ideological capture and its impact on social work with children.

I thought her letter was calling out schools failing to be politically impartial which is a legal requirement? They are not meant to allow political organisations to influence / gaslight or coercively control children.

Presumably adults desperate to politically influence children to believe in their preferred ideologies are very cross to hear that schools are meant to be politically neutral - hence the tantrums?

The problem is no one should be above scrutiny including social workers. I remember how they failed to challenge FGM because it was cultural. They seem to be acting as though being a 'profession' should give them absolute power.

“We must speak with one voice” sounds like a riff on #nodebate to me

I'm not sure that social services can be trusted to safeguard and/or protect children when it comes to gender or sex. I mean, just look at Rachel mead (sp) having to sue them, and I won't go into the shit that goes on in Scotland.
However, I do believe that they are correct about Kemi Badenochs letter being a bunker buster. It goes to the heart of the gender identity teachings and the way that schools, social services, and the Scottish and Welsh governments are indoctrinating children and interfering with parental responsibility. They preach affirmation therapy and the medical pathway of vulnerable children against parental consent and threaten parents with the removal of their children if they don't agree. This is wholly wrong and against all the rules, regulations and laws pointed to in this letter, and they know it. Add to this, they seem to be arguing that the state, (ie them) should be involved in raising/parenting all children which is something that I've only heard of happening in both extreme right and left wing dictatorships, Nazi Germany and Stalanist Russia for example.
I see kemi's letter as both a figurative shot across the bow as in we see you and will be coming after you unless you start following the actual law and safeguarding etc rather than stonewall law and gender ideology, and a wake up call to the civil service that impartiality will be enforced.
The response of we must stand together with 1 voice against Kemi shows that they know that what they are doing is wrong both legally and morally and that they don't have a leg to stand on. It also shows that they are scared that they are going to be held responsible for the misery that they have caused. The fact that they are doubling down is concerning as we know that a wounded, cornerd animal is is a very dangerous thing

This letter only makes sense if read from the perspective of a gender ideologue.

Because he can't fathom that the existence of gender ideology might be based on a belief as opposed to an indisputable fact, he makes no room for the possibility that some children might not believe in gender ideology and that it might therefore be detrimental to them to be told they are just plain wrong in their beliefs.

I can see why, if you view your religion as "the right one", as many people of faith do, you are going to be deeply concerned by sensible measures that mean something specific and alarming in the context of your religion. Such as when some Christians become genuinely and deeply concerned for relatives' souls because they are doing something "sinful" like living with a partner without getting married first.

He is right that this is going to take some time and test cases to unravel, though, as gender ideologues will see what they want to see in the Forstater case and its understandably narrow scope unfortunately didn't test enough of the issues definitively.

Its so badly written I struggled to make sense of it.
He represents residential providers. The big issues for them are, I think: how to manage/ fulfil legal duties for children who identify as opposite sex in relation to personal space. Also, what are the limits of parental responsibility i.e if a child identifies as opposite sex should they seek consent to change pronouns etc if so who from. Is consent from the allocated social worker enough, what to do if the parent disagrees. Its a minefield!

What is 'corporate parenting'?

I and dh parent our children. We do not hand over any responsibility for parenting our children to any corporate body. Yes, schools are involved, social services may be involved, clubs and the NHS may be involved - but they do not 'parent' our children.

Great post. Agree with it all. This bit particularly important they seem to be arguing that the state, (ie them) should be involved in raising/parenting all children which is something that I've only heard of happening in both extreme right and left wing dictatorships, Nazi Germany and Stalanist Russia for example.

It is disturbing that there are many in the social services / teaching / council jobs who are supposed to safeguard children who seemingly do not understand safeguarding and also have an ideological agenda. It's not just over the 'trans' issue (although this is a very big issue). I've heard people pretty much stating that they think parents who homeschool are a safeguarding red flag / neglectful / abusive and treating them as adversaries: clearly not in the best interests of the child to start from that position and goes against all knowledge we have about what's best for the child. So many homeschool not out of a free choice but because their (often SEND) children can't cope in mainstream education. I know lots who'd absolutely love some support from the system but all they get is threats (e.g. over attendance).

The system isn't well enough resourced (which is the Tories fault), which I think is why these ideologues can gain ground, when everyone else is just desperately trying to make ends meet, they can push things through without enough scrutiny.

The parents of children in care of the state still retain parental rights in all sorts of ways - unless the courts deem otherwise. Funny how allegedly qualified social workers conveniently forget about this when they're transitioning other people's children.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683698/Applying_corporate_parenting_principles_to_looked-after_children_and_care_leavers.pdf

It’s specific to children in care and reflects councils’ duties to consider if in providing services to those children they are as good as they would want their own children to receive.

I blame politicians and the media who big these people up, this then gives them the attitude that they are a superior caste, it actually starts with grifter universities giving them a big ego as students.

They also are a sacred caste when it comes to consequences. They built safeguarding guidelines on fabricated induced illness, they did not think it applied to them, they don't report each other the police and CPS don't produte them like other members of the public, they are invisible and that needs to stop. Nobody made them train or apply for jobs it was a choice.

They ignore that they are selfish and inept as well as the fact they achieve poor outcomes.

In serious case reviews and in government inquiries that they throw the vulnerable under the bus and safeguard themselves, their colleagues and institutions first.

It is disturbing that there are many in the social services / teaching / council jobs who are supposed to safeguard children who seemingly do not understand safeguarding and also have an ideological agenda. It's not just over the 'trans' issue (although this is a very big issue). I've heard people pretty much stating that they think parents who homeschool are a safeguarding red flag / neglectful / abusive and treating them as adversaries: clearly not in the best interests of the child to start from that position and goes against all knowledge we have about what's best for the child. So many homeschool not out of a free choice but because their (often SEND) children can't cope in mainstream education. I know lots who'd absolutely love some support from the system but all they get is threats (e.g. over attendance).

They believe the passing some exams, a DBS check and HR interview makes them and their colleagues somehow a superior human.

They forget that actually they are more likely to be abusers, look at the educational attainment \liar correlation and the psychopath \management links.

Not many want to look into the deeper problems, just the superficial gender identity issues.

The article uses a lot of terms and references I’m not familiar with, but the form of the argument is very familiar. Is this just more forced teaming of “trans rights” issues with real problems?

I don't understand how he has extrapolated all of his concerns from Kemi Badenoch requesting that OFSTED do a snap school inspection on the grounds that they are not being politically impartial or acting in a way consistent with The Equality Act's requirements for schools.

It's a mystery to me and he's sounding a bit like those TRAs who say they know what eg JK Rowling really means even though she doesn't say it "The serious and wider intent is shown in the letter."

If Kemi has any ulterior motive as he is suggesting and that "The very definition of ‘corporate parenting’ upon which our current legislation is constructed is placed into jeopardy." then I'm sure this will become evident over time and we can push back against it if needed.

I'm a newly qualified SW but with 20 years of experience working with children in care, as a residential worker of course we listened to the wishes and feelings of the children, but as with any responsible parent the corporate parents (council via the Social worker and foster carers or residential staff) made the ultimate decisions in the best interests of the child. Part of making decisions involves looking at the evidence base eg for medical decisions, and the evidence base for transition is very weak.

Some of his worry appears connected to the criticism of the individual teacher for breaching equality law as he worries about individual workers being culpable. This does not worry me as I always knew that I could be found individually culpable; a child could make an allegation against any one, that's why keeping accurate records is always so vital, and always ensuring whatever actions you take are for the welfare of the child (I worked with children with emotional and behavioural issues and often had to restrain them physically).

I also worked in a home for 13-18 year olds and at one time we had 3 boys and 1 girl, so if a child who had been socially transitioned at home did need a placement it isn't completely unworkable, you just need clear risk assessments and risk management in place.