Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. OUT! OUT! OUT!

I’ll admit that politics hasn’t been top of my agenda since the change of government, but I couldn’t let the review of the Children’s Commissioner pass by without comment.

It was to be hoped that, this time, the cries of “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Out. Out. Out.” would be heeded by a Tory government, but alas, with the political situation being what it is, we shall have to wait and see whether the coalition will have the balls to give Maggie the boot when the *independent* review presents its findings in November. In the mean time a little recap, along with a catch up, is in order I think.

Back in March I wrote this post which detailed some of the interesting connections between the various players in the HE Review, and the way that they appeared to link up to the tragic case of Khyra Ishaq. There are several mentions of Maggie Atkinson in that post which will be making a reappearance in this one, and whilst this post should stand alone, you might want to have a skim read of the earlier post to get an idea of the wider picture.

The review into the role of the Children’s Commissioner for England [CC] was announced on July 12th following “a furore over insensitive remarks by the current commissioner over the killing of James Bulger.” (Daily Mail article) This is not the first time Ms Atkinson has courted controversy in her role as CC: her appointment to the role was extremely controversial, with her champion, Ed Balls, thumbing his nose at the advice of the Select Committee charged with interviewing for the post, who felt that they were:

"unable to endorse her appointment, as we would like to have seen more sign of determination to assert the independence of the role, to challenge the status quo on children’s behalf, and to stretch the remit of the post, in particular by championing children’s rights." (opens Select Committee report PDF)

I find Barry Sheerman’s comments on this matter very interesting, and deeply concerning:

"When pushed... she said she would not champion children's rights, her role was to be the voice of children. We found it difficult to see how she could do one without the other."

If this article is anything to go by, I find her assertion that she would be the voice of children rather hollow.

On July 23rd Ms Atkinson told the TES that she had been given the nod that her role is safe, and that “she believes that the review could even STRENGTHEN her powers.” (my emphasis)

Consider that “the powers the Commissioner does have exceed those granted to parents under the terms of the legislation. Parents are not mentioned in Part One of the Act, so although the Commissioner is required to consult organisations working with children in the discharge of his functions, he is not obliged to consult parents. Similarly, he has the power to conduct interviews, or authorise someone else to do so, with a child in private, subject only to the child’s consent.” (opens PDF)

Personally, I think the role, and therefore Ms Atkinson, has far too much power already, and that it needs reining in, not strengthening. Have a look at this video where Maggie describes your children as her children, and see how comfortable you feel with her having this much power. It sends shivers down my spine. Perhaps it was a well meant comment, but it’s not one that I think anyone who is a parent would make.

Another concern regards the duties of the CC, which according to the Bill that enacted the role are:

“monitoring complaints procedures for children, overseeing arrangements for children’s advocacy, monitoring legislation to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account, overseeing child death reviews and carrying out inquiries into major child abuse cases and child deaths; and to make provision to ensure that the work of the Commissioner is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child.”

Looking at these duties I believe the Select Committee was absolutely right to question whether Ms Atkinson would be able to “assert the independence of the role”.

Ms Atkinson was formerly the Director of Gateshead Children’s Services, and head of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS). In her role as CC she now “oversees child death reviews and inquiries into major child abuse cases and child deaths”.... So when a child dies, or suffers abuse enough to result in a serious case review, Ms Atkinson will be overseeing it, it would seem. I am struggling to see how it would be possible to trust the outcome of such reviews given Ms Atkinson’s close affinity to the people who are “accountable for the outcomes of every child in an area.” (Ministerial speech (opens Word Doc) to ADCS 2008 conference) It would surely be a conflict of interests?

In 2009 Gateshead Safeguarding Children Board held a serious case review after Child D was hospitalised with a fracture and malnutrition. The SRC found that the issues investigated were “primarily a failing on the part of Children’s Services”. One cannot help but draw parallels with the Khyra Ishaq case. The person in overall charge of Gateshead Children’s Services in 2009, was Ms Atkinson, as DCS.

I’m struggling to comprehend how then, as the head of a failing Children’s Services involved in a serious case review, she managed to land the role of Children’s Commissioner.

Mind you, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the Teflon coating these people seem to have. Let’s for a moment move our attention to Graham Badman who, only last week in a matter unrelated to home education, was described by a Conservative MP as being “Ed Balls’ henchman”. (I think this is also what Michael Gove was inferring about Atkinson when he said “that Atkinson had been appointed to three government educational roles in the past and that in each post she had been "a consistent supporter of government policy".) (Guardian Article)

In 2008 a little girl called Tiffany died at the hands of her father. As this Telegraph article explains: “Kent County Council, which deals with up to 20,000 referrals from children's social services, conceded that an independent review of the case had identified a "missed opportunity" within children's social services to share information.” The Director of Children’s Services in Kent at the time was Graham Badman, and yet he was tasked with carrying out a serious case review into the death of Baby P! As John Dunford (yes, the same man who is conducting the review into the Children’s Commissioner) said in this Guardian article:

“directors of children's services have "the job from hell", responsible for everything that happens to children in their area.”

But they know that when they take the role on, and if they aren’t prepared to carry the can for their failings then they shouldn’t be in post.

Of course Badman’s gravy train came to an abrupt halt with the change of government, his pet quango being one of the first to be killed off in the cutbacks making quite a hefty saving of £75 million. If the role of Children’s Commissioner were abolished, it would only save £3 million so perhaps the government will decide that it is worth keeping to avoid any potential posturing about a lack of concern over children’s rights. Something I think Ms Atkinson was hinting at when she said in the TES article that:

“there were children's commissioners or ombudsmen in every other UK country and in most European and Commonwealth nations and that cutting the post would put England in an "absolutely unique" position.”

I hope that the government will not be swayed by such veiled threats, and instead look very closely at the damage someone with Ms Atkinson’s history could do to parent/child and state/parent/child relationships, particularly if they do as she seems to want and grant her more power.

John Dunford says at the end of the Ministerial Letter announcing the review:

“I look forward to leading this important review into the role and functions of the Children’s Commissioner. I will be looking with an open mind about the best way to give young people a voice and protect their rights. That is why it is important that I talk to young people themselves to hear their views about the best way to represent them.
I will also be talking to a wide range of children’s groups, people working in education and children’s services, and looking at successful practices in other countries.”

I think that there might be rather a lot of Home Educated children who would like to tell Mr Dunford their views. You can respond to the consultation here, if you or your child feel up to taking part in yet another government consultation process that is...


With thanks, as ever, to EK for providing the information and the much needed push to create this post!

Time Table of Sordid Events

I wasn't going to blog about the Khyra Ishaq case as others have already done so far more eloquently than I ever could, but...

I've just been reading this article which includes this comment made by Gordon Brown:

"On Monday Gordon Brown paid tribute to the two girls, saying: “It is a sad and tragic situation when children so young die.
"Ed Balls and the Children's department will take very seriously any information that is given to them concerning these cases."

Now just look at the first two words of that comment. "On MONDAY". "On MONDAY". Monday was February 22nd. THREE DAYS before Ed Balls made this statement regarding the Khyra Ishaq case.

THREE DAYS before Home Educators were vilified across the national press by Balls and his henchman Badman.

Are we really expected to believe that "Ed Balls and the Children's department will take very seriously any information that is given to them concerning these cases"?

In March last year, ie nearly a whole year ago, Ed Balls stood up in parliament and promised a "root and branch shake up of child protection services."

At the beginning of October last year, Birmingham Social Services was branded "not fit for purpose." They were given THREE MORE MONTHS to sort things out, otherwise the government would intervene. They had already received the lowest rating back in 2008. That's nearly TWO YEARS ago.

Who has been head of the DCSF for those intervening years? Who has done sweet FA to sort out the horrific mess that is Birmingham children's services? Would that be one Mr Edward Balls?

I said this the other night on twitter and was rounded on by a Ballite (Ballache?!) for it, but Ed Balls should fall on his sword. Particularly now, after wilfully slandering an entire community in his desire for political point scoring over the death of a child. How poisonous can a person who heads the department of Children and Families be to knowingly blame the failings of one of his departments, knowing that more children had died on his watch who had NOTHING to do with home education, on something he despises so much - home education? No matter that he is causing real and heartfelt pain and distress for tens of thousands of those he is supposed to help and support in his role of Secretary of State for Children [schools] and Families.

I for one demand your resignation Edward Balls.

ETA This article shows just how far back Birmingham's problems go.

My BBC Complaint

Yes it's a rant I'm afraid.

*Home Educators have been waiting months for the grave robbing activities of the government and press to start up again, and here we have it.

Graham Badman said himself in his own report, which the government accepted in full, that he found NO EVIDENCE that home education was being used as a cover for abuse. He knew about the Ishaq case at the time he wrote the report. He is now pouring forth vitriol because he was caught out using dodgy statistics and bare faced lies in order to do his master's bidding.

Such a pity that a Great British institution is in the pockets of it's masters over at LIEbour central. More gongs for the boys no doubt.

Slandering a minority group by using a dead child, a child who died because of the lack of care of the authorities, authorities who already had the power to save her, is disgusting, and you should have your license to broadcast removed as a result."

ETA: Maire's complaint here

Debs complaint here

Firebird is keeping a Media Watch here

Jax complains here

If you'd like to make a more effective complaint than my rant (wise!) there is great advice here

Will add more as they are blogged

Balls Recommends Licensing as a Result of Incestuous Amplification

Synchronicity is a funny thing. You can be happily reading a book about one of the greatest medical cons of our time, when BANG, a phrase hits you right between the eyes, and you suddenly have a diagnosis for all the troubles of the past year.

Incestuous Amplification.

This is a military term, which is in itself interesting, considering it feels as though we have been fighting in a dirty battle since January 19th.

In psychological circles it is known as *group polarisation*, but I prefer the military term myself, it fits far better with our government's propensity for the *sexing up* of documents, don't you think?

"In a nutshell: Like-minded people, talking only with one another, usually end up believing a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk."

—Cass R. Sunstein, "The Power of Dissent," Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2003

It certainly seems to have worked in the most incredibly powerful way as this tale of a Home Educator and her young child who were doorstepped only this week, shows: they were left shaken and distressed after suffering various threats, and were told (presumably as justification for such appalling treatment) that:

"Home Educators are more likely to abuse their children."

We have the stats that totally disprove this, but if a BAD MAN repeats the lie often enough, and to groups of people who really want to believe it to be true, then the lie becomes a truth - in the eyes of those who have been guilty of incestuous amplification at least.

Remember, incestuous amplification means: The observer sees what he wants to see rather than what is. When this happens, the Decisions and Actions flowing from that Orientation become progressively disconnected from reality.

Wishing you all a New Year free from Balls, Bad Men and Incestuous Amplification.

Irony

Lately I can't help but chuckle at the irony of the words of our *esteemed leaders* (or do I mean *running out of steam*?)

Take for instance this quote from the Telegraph:

"If we bandy around accusations regardless of the facts, and take action regardless of the evidence, we will just end up alienating the very communities we need to help us tackle extremism."

Oh, right, so we can safely assume then that this level headed person would never over see the eradication of a community based on flawed evidence? Ah, no, silly me, of course not, because this is the same person who supported the Badman review in its entirety, and who has now commissioned the most shocking piece of anti parent and anti child legislation that this country has ever seen.

It's ok though, because Ed also says:

"We all have a duty to stand up for the values that underpin our society.

That does mean challenging those who actively seek to undermine them and influence others to do the same - on the streets, on the Internet or behind closed doors."

Which is exactly what we're doing Ed, so perhaps you might have a word in the shell like of your laccies over at DCSF central and get them to stop issuing nasty letters to people who are just *doing what you told us to*.

Home Ed Protest Song

We had a ball taking part in this - thanks so much to Allan and Imogen for all their hard work putting it all together!