Comments on: Baby P protest today http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2008/12/baby-p-protest-today.htm Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:02:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Mark http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2008/12/baby-p-protest-today.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1511 Mark Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:27:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp28/?p=2007#comment-1511 I have just read a comment from someone on the SKY NEWS website, referring to the article entitled "Baby P Horror Prompts Shake-Up ". The person who has posted this comment asks "why do social workers get paid extra for NOT taking children into care" ?<br/><br/>Does anyone know if this is true ?<br/><br/>I truly hope not. <br/><br/>In my view 'incentivising' (through financial means) the non-removal of children from abusive parents / families, would create an environment where the childs best interests are 'in conflict' with the needs (financial) of the social worker (or his / her superiors).<br/><br/>As such, this may have been a critical factor in the decision making for baby P.<br/><br/>This is probably one of the most important questions to have not been answered yet. <br/><br/>Can anyone confirm (or otherwise) such a claim ? I have just read a comment from someone on the SKY NEWS website, referring to the article entitled “Baby P Horror Prompts Shake-Up “. The person who has posted this comment asks “why do social workers get paid extra for NOT taking children into care” ?

Does anyone know if this is true ?

I truly hope not.

In my view ‘incentivising’ (through financial means) the non-removal of children from abusive parents / families, would create an environment where the childs best interests are ‘in conflict’ with the needs (financial) of the social worker (or his / her superiors).

As such, this may have been a critical factor in the decision making for baby P.

This is probably one of the most important questions to have not been answered yet.

Can anyone confirm (or otherwise) such a claim ?

]]> By: AM http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2008/12/baby-p-protest-today.htm/comment-page-1#comment-1510 AM Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:02:00 +0000 http://localhost/wp28/?p=2007#comment-1510 It was important that this march took place. Given the range of agencies involved a public inquiry is one way to go. Such an inquiry would at least consider the role of Lord Laming who recommended to the government that no such inquiry was necessary. Yet As the Daily Telegraph reported in November:<br/><br/>"So, the Laming regime of child protection is set up and when it fails its first major public test, as it has over Baby P, he is summoned to give us the benefit of his wisdom once again and declares himself happy with the progress of his own recommended reforms despite another death in the same borough, Haringey, which had prompted his original inquiry.<br/><br/>Would it not have been more sensible to ask another person to investigate the Laming regime, rather than Laming himself? This could even, maybe, have been not a social worker but a public servant with experience of another area of government or public policy." It was important that this march took place. Given the range of agencies involved a public inquiry is one way to go. Such an inquiry would at least consider the role of Lord Laming who recommended to the government that no such inquiry was necessary. Yet As the Daily Telegraph reported in November:

“So, the Laming regime of child protection is set up and when it fails its first major public test, as it has over Baby P, he is summoned to give us the benefit of his wisdom once again and declares himself happy with the progress of his own recommended reforms despite another death in the same borough, Haringey, which had prompted his original inquiry.

Would it not have been more sensible to ask another person to investigate the Laming regime, rather than Laming himself? This could even, maybe, have been not a social worker but a public servant with experience of another area of government or public policy.”

]]>