tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post8358303385714611974..comments2023-06-10T14:26:15.957+01:00Comments on Staffordshire: Letter to UK Statistics AuthorityMairehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00516412983740136098noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-68612234684249888472009-07-31T11:28:50.589+01:002009-07-31T11:28:50.589+01:00Done Claire.Done Claire.Mairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00516412983740136098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-47278893018221808452009-07-29T22:17:16.007+01:002009-07-29T22:17:16.007+01:00I have also written to the UKSA. Would you mind co...I have also written to the UKSA. Would you mind contacting me to discuss?<br />(This is the first time I have ever commented on a blog so not sure if you will automatically receive my contact details. If not, you can find me on the BRAG forum as TheBladesFamily.)Clairenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-60962287821027950872009-07-28T23:03:41.305+01:002009-07-28T23:03:41.305+01:00Thanks Elizabeth and back at you, I see your work ...Thanks Elizabeth and back at you, I see your work in many places, and Bev, we are all doing what we can I know, and the whole is certainly greater than the sum of the parts!Mairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00516412983740136098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-84545488034657389882009-07-28T22:53:56.302+01:002009-07-28T22:53:56.302+01:00Sally,
You are right about Section 37. We initia...Sally,<br /><br />You are right about Section 37. We initially had something about Section 37 but deleted it because it covers cases already gone to court. Whereas the text sought to highlight problems with the measure used.<br /><br />Thanks for the info that Section 17 might include siblings, we didn't know that. Ditto about badly handled cases under Section 47.<br /><br />We think your following up of the journos' is really important. If it was possible for their notes be used in a submission to the select committee as they would surely expose any dishonesty in the press release briefings. We have an Foi in for the people he or the department briefed and if we ever get an answer think it might be useful asking for their recollections of it. We will be putting an Foi in for the count of the answers to question 22 of the questionnaire.<br /><br />My reading of the 2005 stats is that they aren't broken down by type of education - so the 3% figure for the population as a whole will include EHE children.<br /><br />Agree absolutely that no one should acuse badman of manipulating the statistics. It's more that further details about the pros/cons of each figure was not spelt out so that a reasonable assessment of their value/usefulness can be made.<br /><br />His LA questionnaire was a missed opportunity to collect useful data. He asks about use of HE as a cover for child abuse etc at Q22 (or 51 on the internet version) and asks about the number of Serious Case Reviews involing EHEs. But he didn't ask about non-EHE, without this as a comparator the responses he got will be of limited value. <br /><br />Bruce and MaireMairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00516412983740136098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-32050081273316369312009-07-28T00:04:43.639+01:002009-07-28T00:04:43.639+01:00My goodness, I feel so much better knowing that we...My goodness, I feel so much better knowing that we have you on our side. Thank you... from all my family.Bevhttp://theraggededge.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-78984660128365856902009-07-27T13:56:35.045+01:002009-07-27T13:56:35.045+01:00David Law seems to hold the same position about ne...David Law seems to hold the same position about need to regulate for potential for abuse even where abuse doesn't exist, or is significantly lower than general population.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-85139286355253458082009-07-27T13:54:48.581+01:002009-07-27T13:54:48.581+01:00I've been writing this to someone who is worki...I've been writing this to someone who is working on a press release. I think we need to be careful to not accuse Badman of deliberately manipulating stats, but I think we are in a position to say the following:<br /><br />Looking at the annex 5 last night I note footnote 2 which says he has, for the purpose of comparison, used stats for children known to social care in maintained schools from 2005 which include disabled children and are the latest available stats. I can see no reason until now for the Government to require disaggregated abuse returns that show how the child receives education. <br /><br />This may indicate that the stats are unavailable for all schooled children (including independent schools) and there are no disaggregated stats for abuse that do not already include the target population (EHE) which he could have used, and certainly no new ones. I expect the stats he's using are the only ones that don't automatically include EHE children.<br /><br />So, if we criticize him publicly he can reply that his hands were tied.<br /> Then we would have to try to reply publicly, which we probably won't get the opportunity to do, saying he should have used his questionnaire to formulate disaggregated stats for both groups in order to even begin to address the question at the heart of the review, and he hasn't. He cannot merely assume that the two groups have the same rate of disability, for example. So his comparison is unreliable and inadmissible, as well as leaving the door open for a politically convenient misunderstanding. This is what he should have reported back to the Government. However, he is quite clear in the review (somewhere 8:12 and maybe elsewhere earlier) that the number of abuse cases is insignificant to his recommendation 22; that the potential for using EHE to cover abuse remains and should be policed for. Why bother having a review then? <br />We then get to the police state questions. Should we have one? How will we fund it? Will it protect or endanger children (by spreading resources too thinly)? Do the Government have the right to sacrifice our civil liberties for us? No, they don't, not without proportionate cause/risk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-49312414298501308812009-07-27T13:51:11.295+01:002009-07-27T13:51:11.295+01:00I have been in considerable contact with the Indep...I have been in considerable contact with the Independent regarding this article. (I'm hoping I've saved their replies!) They claim their journalist has correctly quoted Badman from his press conference. I wonder if we can get a transcript of the press conference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-77476461832127332872009-07-27T13:49:05.171+01:002009-07-27T13:49:05.171+01:00sorry that should be footnote 1sorry that should be footnote 1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-27951137848804143202009-07-27T13:48:41.059+01:002009-07-27T13:48:41.059+01:00Fantastic. I've been trying to work through t...Fantastic. I've been trying to work through this stuff too. You've not mentioned section 37 which is in Badman's footnote 2 in annex 5. Not sure if it was applicable.<br /><br />Also, section 17 'known to's may include siblings of 'children in need' due to disability, etc. It appears to.<br /><br />Serious Case Reviews (included in section 47 and relating to enquiries rather than individuals?) can be enquiries following death or harm, or following mishandling of a case, according to the recent critique by Ofsted. May Badman be using stats that include numbers of badly handled cases as if they are harmed children?<br /><br />I'm still reading through and sending comments as I work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697346330292757999.post-33567461599313734262009-07-27T08:18:42.474+01:002009-07-27T08:18:42.474+01:00You two are wonderful!!
Hoping someone there tak...You two are wonderful!! <br />Hoping someone there takes this seriously.Elizabethnoreply@blogger.com