Rotherham Council mass resignation.....
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
Someone over at Rotherham council has an interesting sense of humour.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RMBCPress/status/815135...
When it first came out you could book a non Asian / Pakistani / muslim taxi driver.https://mobile.twitter.com/RMBCPress/status/815135...
That was of course not acceptable - cries of racism...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/25/ro...
Good to see some people may yet be held to account for their conduct.
Good to see some people may yet be held to account for their conduct.
The line being spun this morning was "the law gives the father rights to see his child, and we have to follow the law"
I would question whether they actually need to go out of their way to facilitate and encourage the father to have access to his son, including the suggestion that the poor kid would perhaps like to go and visit "daddy" in prison.
It would seem that lessons have not been learned.....as per usual
I would question whether they actually need to go out of their way to facilitate and encourage the father to have access to his son, including the suggestion that the poor kid would perhaps like to go and visit "daddy" in prison.
It would seem that lessons have not been learned.....as per usual
I think what's especially repugnant is that, if the story as written in the news is true, the Rotherham employees approached the guy in prison and told him they could arrange this. Not him approaching the council staff and asking them to sort it. That just blows my mind, these council staff seem to be actively looking for ways to cause upset.
BoRED S2upid said:
Nothing surprises me anymore. Why does a law even exist for this? Who thought I know rapists need a law to allow them access to their children? I’m glad she’s speaking up hopefully the law will be changed. Poor kid.
The law is not, of course, specific to rapists. It is meant to encompass all children separated from their father for whatever reason. However, there's little doubt the law did not expect to include instances like this. All the council need to do is find some other decision that suits the situation. For instance, anonymity of the victim; there's little doubt that the mother will be identified. Or concern that the offender, with a history of one of the most serious offences against the person, will offend again. Or even that no criminal, especially one of an offence such as this, should 'benefit' from his crime.
The norm is that child abuse and rape are not in normal circumstances a crime with a sexual motive. It is an exercise of power. That is often what give the offender the kick. They have complete authority over the victim. There was a chap from Rotherham who 'merely' according to some, spanked pre-pubescent children as if this was in some way allowable or mitigating. In his case it was probably all the bloke could manage, but the kick he got was from having a child at his mercy.
Who are these officials? They don't have to take the advice of lawyers. Moral behaviour is allowed.
This is repugnant.
An interesting article on this here - http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-counci... .
If that's accurate, it would appear The Times article may not be quite as accurate as it appears (just like the piece by the same journalist about the Muslim foster care case).
The law requires that if a council is applying for a care order, (as they were in this case, with the mother's approval, because of the child's special needs0 then they must notify the father of the proceedings. As part of that the father is informed they may be able to apply for certain access rights, which is what seems to be what actually happened here.
So the social workers have followed the legal framework properly (something they're often criticised for not doing) and the root cause of the problem is in the law which requires giving the parent the right to apply for access, even if the child is the result of rape.
If that's accurate, it would appear The Times article may not be quite as accurate as it appears (just like the piece by the same journalist about the Muslim foster care case).
The law requires that if a council is applying for a care order, (as they were in this case, with the mother's approval, because of the child's special needs0 then they must notify the father of the proceedings. As part of that the father is informed they may be able to apply for certain access rights, which is what seems to be what actually happened here.
So the social workers have followed the legal framework properly (something they're often criticised for not doing) and the root cause of the problem is in the law which requires giving the parent the right to apply for access, even if the child is the result of rape.
I note Sky News have calmed down an awful lot since this morning having spoken to QCs who specialise in family law.
Maybe there’s something to be addressed. Maybe not. The courts decide whether any attempt at involvement by the father is allowed as things stand. This a
hole made no response anyway (I’ve read).
It’s all part of the “life sentence” many rape victims must feel they serve.
But things aren’t quite as the article appeared to present and aren’t quite how many might think things are.
Maybe there’s something to be addressed. Maybe not. The courts decide whether any attempt at involvement by the father is allowed as things stand. This a
hole made no response anyway (I’ve read).It’s all part of the “life sentence” many rape victims must feel they serve.
But things aren’t quite as the article appeared to present and aren’t quite how many might think things are.
rscott said:
If that's accurate, it would appear The Times article may not be quite as accurate as it appears (just like the piece by the same journalist about the Muslim foster care case).
I didn't realise it was by that bellend.I hope they aren't exploiting the mum to generate a story.
scenario8 said:
I note Sky News have calmed down an awful lot since this morning having spoken to QCs who specialise in family law.
Maybe there’s something to be addressed. Maybe not. The courts decide whether any attempt at involvement by the father is allowed as things stand. This ahole made no response anyway (I’ve read).
It’s all part of the “life sentence” many rape victims must feel they serve.
But things aren’t quite as the article appeared to present and aren’t quite how many might think things are.
It does appear there is a particularly nasty loophole in the law here, as regards the victims of rape.Maybe there’s something to be addressed. Maybe not. The courts decide whether any attempt at involvement by the father is allowed as things stand. This a
hole made no response anyway (I’ve read).It’s all part of the “life sentence” many rape victims must feel they serve.
But things aren’t quite as the article appeared to present and aren’t quite how many might think things are.
Whatever else, the victim (and her son, who apparently gave his consent) is very brave to have waived anonymity to highlight the issue.
rscott said:
So the social workers have followed the legal framework properly (something they're often criticised for not doing) and the root cause of the problem is in the law which requires giving the parent the right to apply for access, even if the child is the result of rape.
But I thought I read somewhere that the council could have applied to the court to not do so. Then again, this is the council that spent thousands on injunctions to stop us finding out about these men, they do seem to have a vested interested in them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff