Comments on: Serious Case Reviews – Baby Peter and beyond http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/10/serious-case-reviews-baby-peter-and-beyond.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: DocBud http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/10/serious-case-reviews-baby-peter-and-beyond.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2412 DocBud Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:18:37 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5280#comment-2412 Elizabeth said "monitoring of all children". My anti-liberal alarm went into overdrive. The state does not have a role to play in the day to day lives of families unless they have evidence of some form of criminal behaviour. I for one would not cooperate with any generalised monitoring that starts with the assumption that all adults are potential child abusers. Apart from the illiberality of such ideas, they are counter-productive, they create a state v people society, they waste resources looking at areas where there is no problem and they make it more likely that there will be incidents of abuse missed because the 'monitors' will monitor more families without abuse than with and so an expectation that the likely outcome of monitoring will be no abuse will develop. For the majority of children, their parents can be relied upon to do the best for them. We may have varying ideas as to what that best might be, how much telly and what they watch, what diet, what bedtime, what toys, etc? But that has always been the way and the majority of adults have survived to become functioning members of society. What we do not need is the state to try and impose some narrow, uniformity as to what is acceptable parenting, and that is what will happen in order to justify general monitoring of all children. Elizabeth said “monitoring of all children”. My anti-liberal alarm went into overdrive. The state does not have a role to play in the day to day lives of families unless they have evidence of some form of criminal behaviour. I for one would not cooperate with any generalised monitoring that starts with the assumption that all adults are potential child abusers. Apart from the illiberality of such ideas, they are counter-productive, they create a state v people society, they waste resources looking at areas where there is no problem and they make it more likely that there will be incidents of abuse missed because the ‘monitors’ will monitor more families without abuse than with and so an expectation that the likely outcome of monitoring will be no abuse will develop.

For the majority of children, their parents can be relied upon to do the best for them. We may have varying ideas as to what that best might be, how much telly and what they watch, what diet, what bedtime, what toys, etc? But that has always been the way and the majority of adults have survived to become functioning members of society. What we do not need is the state to try and impose some narrow, uniformity as to what is acceptable parenting, and that is what will happen in order to justify general monitoring of all children.

]]> By: elizabeth http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/10/serious-case-reviews-baby-peter-and-beyond.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2411 elizabeth Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:47:43 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5280#comment-2411 Good work Lynne Looking closely at these very sad cases will surely tell us if changes in the law and monitoring of all children are genuinely needed to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children or whether the current systems were simply not used to best effect. Good work Lynne

Looking closely at these very sad cases will surely tell us if changes in the law and monitoring of all children are genuinely needed to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children or whether the current systems were simply not used to best effect.

]]> By: DocBud http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/10/serious-case-reviews-baby-peter-and-beyond.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2409 DocBud Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:49:14 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5280#comment-2409 With you on this one 100%, Lynne. Open public accountability is both liberal and democratic. Those wishing to keep reports and other information under wraps should be the ones justifying why it should not be in the public domain. The default position should be that if it is produced by public servants at taxpayers' expense it should be freely available. With you on this one 100%, Lynne. Open public accountability is both liberal and democratic. Those wishing to keep reports and other information under wraps should be the ones justifying why it should not be in the public domain. The default position should be that if it is produced by public servants at taxpayers’ expense it should be freely available.

]]> By: AM http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/10/serious-case-reviews-baby-peter-and-beyond.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2408 AM Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:08:12 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5280#comment-2408 Excellent as always on this case. Why they could even ask you for more information is an indication of how wrongheaded they can be on these matters. What possible reason could there be for not making it public? The agencies that represented the public in supposedly defending Baby Peter's rights let the child and the public down. They alone stand to benefit from refusal to allow the material to enter the public domain Excellent as always on this case. Why they could even ask you for more information is an indication of how wrongheaded they can be on these matters. What possible reason could there be for not making it public? The agencies that represented the public in supposedly defending Baby Peter’s rights let the child and the public down. They alone stand to benefit from refusal to allow the material to enter the public domain

]]>