originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: grainofsand
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion
As I equally respect your right to hold and express yours.
However, I am concerned that this is a whole new intrusion on private family life. Of course its an extreme case but that how precedences are
established. Unfortunately, the government never sets limits in the law (for instance: no intervention if BMI is less than say 35). Then we have
situations where the government feels the need to intervene as soon as a child exceeds the average.
I understand your concern, but personally, as a UK citizen, I don't see this as anything other than an extremely rare situation where 'the
authorities' are struggling to find the right path for this poor child and it's parents.
I also have issues with government overstepping the mark, of course it is something to keep an eye on, but it is a delicate balancing act with some
I spent over 15 years working in various arms of UK welfare, central government, local government social services, and also the charitable sector. I
even used to sign off decisions (which I had made) but on behalf of the secretary of state, with no appeal option available to the person concerned.
Government is only as 'fair' as the people who administer it, but I know one thing, when it comes to taking children into care it really is the very
last option for under staffed and under funded 'safeguarding children' teams.
I agree that oppressive use of arrest tactics is something which is not desirable for any society, but if I was forced to make a call I would bet all
my money that all
the people involved in this case made their decisions with the best intentions for the child, not as tyranical overlords.
Our system is not perfect and there is plenty of shady unnofficial stuff that goes on in UK 'administration' which I've been involved in myself.
Information sharing by the Civil Service to the police for example is only 'legal' if there is serious risk of harm to an individual or the public,
but 'off the record' exchanges of information happened regularly when local police wanted to find some low-level scumbag who was wanted for theft or
whatever. Not legal at all, but morally defensible.
On an off-topic note, but relevant and supportive to your wider distrust of 'authority', I remember earning £££thousands in weekend overtime shifts
in the 90's during the 6 months prior to the UK 'formally' signing up to the European freedom of information act. The government at the time declared
every citizen would have access to their records/files to see what was written about them. Tony Blair, the then prime minister, explained that
government departments needed time to set the process in motion - that was just a crock of lies as the reason for the delay was tens of thousands of
'cleared' civil servants needed to go through every file and clean them up to a solely factual/impartial standard.
I share equal distrust of authority with you, but in this case of an eleven year old weighing 210 pounds at 5'1" I am drawn to the belief that
everyone working on that case had the intentions of the child in mind and rightly or wrongly a decision was made that an arrest/intervention could be
useful to finding a solution.
Again though, it is a child protection case and we will never know the details due to strict rules regarding anonymity of the child and its family, so
anything we on ATS think about it is always going to be pure conjecture.
edit on 14-6-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo