A very interesting Freedom of Information Request has come to light regarding The Serious Case Review of the sad failure of Birmingham Social Services to act on the information coming at them from many directions warning of the danger Khyra Ishaq was in. It seems that the NSPCC carried out the review free of charge; was that because it gave them a chance to try and tie the blame to home education? They have been vocal in slurring home educators, without any evidence by their own admission, from the beginning of the Badman/Balls attack (resulting in a well hidden apology to home educators) so they were hardly any more independent in their assessment than Badman as the SCR shows. But the NSPCC do not own a money tree, they are funded by the government and the public, are they funded to cover Birmingham Local Authorities arse? I think not!
5 comments:
well the top 28 earners drain the donations of £2.130.000.00 so Birmingham got a bargain at the expense of the public
My poor little brain is reeling....
very interesting indeed!
Elaine I don't understand how a charity can justify that, or people accept it, no wonder they have veered far from what people perceive to be there purpose.
Kelly mine too, Tech it is isn't it!
Someone else gets a nasty smell from the NSPCC.
'Only a minority of abusers are mad or bad. The vast majority are locked in to an abusive cycle caused by poverty and poor educational opportunities. But tackling that demands a relativist approach which could never be sold in a 30-second television slot. All the charity is left with is what Professor Pritchard calls 'an accusatory and stigmatising approach' which will stop those who most need help - potential abusers - going to the NSPCC in search of it.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/aug/08/foodanddrink.childprotection
Post a Comment