Thursday, February 03, 2011
Vicious British social workers again
They ignore abuses by the underclass and hound decent families over hypothetical problems. Ferals are "supported" (translation: Their abuses are ignored) while the children of decent families are taken away on the slightest excuse
A baby was found dead in his pushchair in front of a blazing gas fire - his body charred and burned - after social services missed 17 chances to save him.
Alex Sutherland, aged 13 months, had been dead for at least three days, according to a harrowing report published yesterday. He had faeces on his hands, legs and buggy, had severe nappy rash and had bruising on his head and body.
His mother, Tracey Sutherland, 39, a former pharmacist, was found nearby by police walking in the rain in her pyjamas and smelling of alcohol. She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.
Yesterday a Serious Case Review found Alex died despite numerous calls to social services from relatives, friends, police, nurses and a childminder. The report states there were 17 separate occasions when fears were raised over his welfare.
Yet he was not placed on the `at risk' register and was allowed to continue living with his mother at their home in Wythenshawe, Manchester, even though she admitted drinking up to six bottles of wine a day.
The case echoes that of Baby P - Peter Connelly - a 17-month-old boy who died in 2007 after suffering up to 50 injuries over eight months, despite being repeatedly seen by Haringey Children's services and NHS professionals.
In March 2009 a review by Lord Laming said a higher priority should be given to child protection. He said there was a lack of communication and joined-up working between agencies and he highlighted problems, with under-trained social workers and a `tick box' mentality.
The findings were published as Alex's suffering - and the failures surrounding his case - were heading towards their tragic conclusion. Yesterday's Serious Case Review spells out a catalogue of occasions when the authorities could have taken action.
The report, by Manchester Safeguarding Children's Board, condemned health and social workers, saying Alex's case was `poorly managed throughout' and his neglect was `both predictable and preventable'.
Referring to Alex as Child T and his mother as Mrs E, it said: `Child T was known to agencies because of Mrs E's misuse of alcohol, yet 17 expressions of concern (four of which alleged she was drunk) failed to trigger a reconsideration of the initial assessments that the likelihood of future significant harm was low.
`No single agency was responsible for failing to protect Child T from the chronic neglect which he suffered at the hands of his mother, but rather he was the victim of the multiple failures of all those agencies . to recognise the risks to which he was exposed and to take appropriate action.'
The report went on: `There were a number of contacts made with agencies by Mrs E's family and friends expressing concern about her drinking behaviour and the impact it had on Child T.'
It said the mother-of-two had had an alcohol problem throughout her adult life after being introduced to drink by her step-father at the age of eight. By 2007 she was drinking six bottles of wine a day and drank throughout her pregnancy. Just three weeks after Alex was born in October 2008, police were called to the house to find him lying on the floor in front of a gas fire while Sutherland staggered around drunk.
He was returned to his mother just nine days later after Sutherland insisted she would deal with her alcohol problems. After his death, Sutherland told police: `This is horrible, I'm a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. I didn't mean to harm him at all, absolute disgrace I am, sick in the head. Do I go to prison now?' She was jailed at Manchester Crown Court in April last year.
Laura Roberts, chief executive of NHS Manchester, said: `We are very sorry that we.did not fully recognise the extent of his neglect.'
Pauline Newman, the city council's director of Children's Services, said it was clear `there were areas where we could have done better'. She added: `We have carried out an extensive programme of work since this little boy died to ensure that staff fully understand the lessons that need to be taken on board from this tragedy.'
`We have also further trained staff to be assertive and challenging to parents who abuse alcohol.'
Ian Rush, the chairman of Manchester Safeguard Children's Board hit back at claims they did nothing to prevent the child's death. He said that Sutherland hid the true extent of her alcohol abuse from them. 'The report is clear in saying that the level of neglect this little boy was experiencing was preventable, had things been different at certain points and had people assessed the situation in a different kind of way,' he said.
Laura Roberts, chief executive of NHS Manchester, said: 'The death of this little boy was a tragedy and we offer our sincere condolences to his family and friends. 'We are very sorry that NHS Manchester, as one of the agencies involved in his care, did not fully recognise the extent of his neglect.
Liberal "Tolerance" Toward Bristol Palin
Though tolerance is not the highest virtue and hypocrisy is not the lowest sin, liberals have a dearth of the former while demanding it and an abundance of the latter while forbidding it.
Washington University's withdrawn speaking invitation to Bristol Palin is a textbook example both of liberal intolerance and hypocrisy.
The university invited Palin to share her views on abstinence during its "Student Sexual Responsibility Week" in February. But when it was disclosed that the school had offered Palin $20,000 to speak, open-minded liberal students objected and the university withdrew the invitation.
Let's look at some of the reasons the university offered for reneging on its invitation to Palin -- reasons that are much more diverse than the university's acceptable range of speaker choices.
The first objection was over the size of the honorarium. While $20,000 is a good chunk of change, it's not like it was a gift. Speakers are routinely paid more on campuses throughout the United States, many of whom couldn't possibly draw the kind of crowds necessary to pay their fees. With Palin's high profile, she doubtlessly could have generated an audience sufficient to cover her honorarium. If that's the case, this objection is unreasonable, especially when schools subsidize other speaker payments. And what does it say about a public institution that it would renege on what we must assume was its legally binding commitment to pay Palin for her appearance?
Of course, the amount of money was probably not the main reason for the student outrage, but just an added irritant to their revulsion that anyone related to Sarah Palin would set foot on their campus, much less at the university's paid invitation.
Soon, other reasons surfaced. One was that Palin is too controversial, a frequent complaint leftists selectively make against conservatives in a variety of venues. But no such student objections were leveled against the appearance at the university of Obama's disgraced "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones, who resigned from his post when it was learned that he had been an avowed Marxist and had publicly denounced Republicans with expletives. And if Palin is controversial for her objectively innocuous views supporting abstinence, how about the Planned Parenthood contingency that will remain on the panel, militantly pushing the pro-abortion position?
Another objection was that Palin couldn't possibly relate to single mothers because she is not a single mother herself -- because she makes too much money. Apart from the fact that you don't have to be a single mother to lecture on abstinence in the first place, it speaks volumes about liberals that they disqualify people from categories based on their unacceptable (conservative) political views -- e.g., conservative blacks are not black. With all deference to liberals' distorted lexicons, Bristol Palin is unmarried and a mother, and is therefore a single mother.
Other liberals, on and off campus, objected that Palin isn't college educated and thus lacks the credentials to speak on a vaunted university campus. This is disgraceful sophism. Are leftists so arrogant that they believe they can't learn from anyone on any subject -- regardless of her experience -- who hasn't acquired knowledge through their approved method? Are reformed drug addicts or alcoholics forbidden to speak on the dangers of drugs and alcohol unless they're able to present their college diplomas?
Another equally lame excuse reared its head when liberals asserted that Palin had no business speaking on the subject of abstinence because she had a child out of wedlock, which disqualified her on the grounds of the mortal sin of hypocrisy.
What's most maddening about this is liberals' habitual misuse of the term hypocrisy. It is not hypocritical for someone to preach against a practice they committed in the past, have sought redemption for and are not presently committing -- especially if the purpose of the preaching is to help others avoid mistakes she made, rather than to condemn them. Common sense and experience tell us that the most effective teachers are often those who have learned from and can steer people away from their past misbehaviors.
The students' outrage was much more likely based on their personal angst that their school would invite someone as detestable as they find Sarah Palin's offspring to be, even if the school would have profited from the event.
Washington University student liberals showed their ugly side in this sordid episode -- displaying their intolerance for certain people and ideas in the name of tolerance, and their rank hypocrisy in the name of banning hypocrisy.
Sadly, they're too eaten up with their own self-righteousness to see through their mirrors clearly.
Two Lesbian High School Students Sue to Accompany Each Other to Dance
The acceptance that they get from this stunt will be largely delusory
Two lesbian high school students who fought for the right to walk together as part of a royalty court made their entrances Monday to the cheers of hundreds of classmates.
Sarah Lindstrom and Desiree Shelton wore matching black suits with pink ties and held hands as they entered the Snow Days Pep Fest at Champlin Park High School in Minneapolis' northwest suburbs.
The reaction came as a relief to the couple and school administrators. The district has been stung by criticism of its policies toward homosexuality and the alleged bullying of a gay student who killed himself.
"It felt amazing," said Shelton, adding that she was too nervous to notice dozens rise to give her a standing ovation as she walked in with Lindstrom. "I think we were too focused on getting to the stage." If there were any boos, they were drowned about by supporters. "I feel so much better," Lindstrom said while surrounded by friends after the rally.
Sarah's mother, Shannon Lindstrom, camera in hand, joined the other mothers of children in the royalty court after the rally. "They had a lot of courage," she said Shelton and her daughter. "Look how far we've come."
Students voted onto the royalty court traditionally enter the assembly in boy-girl pairs. After Lindstrom and Shelton, both 18, were elected, school officials last week announced a change in procedure: court members would walk in individually or accompanied by a parent or favorite teacher.
School officials said they merely wanted to prevent the two from being teased. But on Friday, two human rights groups sued on their behalf.
On Saturday, in federally mediated talks, school officials relented. The two sides agreed that members of the royalty court would be escorted by anyone meaningful to them, regardless of gender or age. "This is a new chapter for the district," said Sam Wolfe, a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which filed the lawsuit along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and local assistance from the Minneapolis law firm of Faegre and Benson.
Young women in evening gowns and young men in dark suits walked through a makeshift arch and to the stage during the Monday afternoon pep rally complete with cheerleaders, dance teams and the school band. So did two young women in suits, and the crowd cheered for each one. "They did great," said Principal Mike George. "I'm proud of our students."
Several of the students in the crowd didn't understand what all the fuss over the lesbian couple. "Some people are against it, but they don't care if they walk down a stupid runway," said Maggie Hesaliman, 14. Melissa Biellefe, 16, said, "We're a pretty respectful school. Our rule is just let people be who they are."
Champlin Park is part of the Anoka-Hennepin school district, Minnesota's largest, which has been in the spotlight in the past year for its handling of issues involving gay and lesbian students. It has been in the crossfire for its policy of "neutrality" in classroom discussions of homosexuality. It was reached in 2009 as a way to balance the demands of liberal and conservative families, but neither side has been completely happy with it.
The issues flared again last year after a gay student, Justin Aaberg, killed himself. His mother has said she heard too late from Justin's friends that he had been harassed. Aaberg was one of six students who committed suicide in the district since the beginning of the 2009-10 school year, and advocacy groups have linked some of the other deaths to the bullying of gay students. However, the district said last month its own investigation did not find evidence that bullying contributed to the students' deaths.
Palestininan leader Reveals His True Agenda
In a recent discussion of the anticipated Palestinian state Mahmoud Abbas, leader in the territory, said he "would not tolerate one single Jew in his new country, Palestine." Speaking before journalists in Ramallah, he clearly and unequivocally noted, "We have already said completely openly, and it will stay that way: If there is a Palestinian country with Jerusalem as its capital, we will not accept that even one single Jew will live there."
Abbas rejected any suggestion that Jews in Judea and Samaria, who have lived in their homes for decades, could remain under Palestinian rule. Meanwhile in all negotiations, the Palestinian position is that "Palestinian refugees" have the right of return to Israel. Therefore, according to the Abbas proposition, Israel should open its borders for Arabs while Palestine closes its borders for Jews.
Here is the unvarnished truth. Arabs can live in Israel as fully fledged citizens with all the rights that status confers. They can have their own political parties, settle in their own communities and represent about twenty percent of the total Israeli population. But on the other side of the political ledger not one Jew, including those who reside on the West Bank, can remain once Palestine becomes an independent nation.
What more does one have to know about the Arab mentality? Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. There is and will remain different standards for Arabs and Jews. Hence, what precisely is a two state solution? An Arab state immediately becomes a threat to the very existence of Israel since Jews are recognized as the enemy and, by virtue of law, must be ostracized.
To make matters even more absurd, Abbas is considered an ideological moderate. After all, he doesn't call for killing Jews, only for a form of apartheid, of absolute separation. Should such a Palestinian nation be created, how long would it take for open hostilities between the two states to break out? Can an Israeli government that encouraged its citizens to move into the West Bank after the culmination of the 1967 war, now tell these residents that they must depart? Is the government prepared to extricate 250,000 people from this region?
These questions, and a host of others, will have to be addressed to meet the demands of a two state solution. But even more fundamental is the attitude of the Palestinians themselves. If Jews aren't permitted there, then presumably Jewish tourist dollars and investment capital are not welcome either. Where does one draw the line?
Clearly modesty is in order. If Abbas didn't have to mollify radical sentiment in the West Bank, these unmistakably racist comments would be an embarrassment and uttered only in private, if then. But his are the views of a radical sensing that the tide of world opinion is with him. Alas, he may be right since condemnation from the media elite over his forthright apartheid stance has not been forthcoming.
If this Palestinian state is created, Israelis should not have any illusions about what it will mean. Further isolation, increased hostility, border tension and suicide bombers are all in the cards. In fact, the deck is stacked against Israel and Abbas has made that fact patently clear.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.