Compulsion and Choice

It wasn't going to last. Just a couple of weeks after UKIP was riding high on a wave of sympathy, following the removal of a child from a UKIP voting couple, they have come crashing to the ground because of one Geoffrey Clark, who thinks we should bring in compulsory abortion for Down's Syndrome and spina bifida to reduce the national debt. He also thinks that free euthanasia advice should be offered to over-80's. UKIP tried to back him at first and then ditched him, in the face of shocked protests from Mencap and the media in general. Someone in Labour or Conservative HQ will be watching in silent satisfaction at this mess - I have no doubt that since UKIP's resurgence, the party nerds will have been trawling UKIP websites looking for someone foolish enough to catch out in this fashion. And Geoffrey Clark has been well and truly caught.

On the surface, I agree with that shock and indigation at his views. It's especially depressing after a wonderful summer of the Paralympics that we're back to auld claes and porridge as far as the disabled are concerned. Another part of me is feeling profoundly uncomfortable with the whole scenario.

It's this. The abortion rate for  DS in the UK is round about 92%. Apart from the fact that this means that Geoffrey Clark's master plan to reduce the national debt would be a failure, it also means that the only difference between Geoffrey Clark's views and the general public's, is compulsion. It is not Geoffrey Clark's values that are really being questioned; it is the fact that he would make a common choice, mandatory.

 What is the actual choice for someone carrying a child with DS? There's abortion. Or, if they choose to have the child, years of fighting with the state for help and support. A piss poor amount of money going into research for the condition and bleak employment prospects. A choice has been made, but it's been made by our society, not by the parent of the child. The choice that they are offered, is in reality, just short of compulsion.

Again, take the dismantling of the NHS. On what pretext was that done? Why, choice. The right to choose a GP, a hospital, a private provider. In reality the government has chosen to bomb the NHS and we will shortly have to chose which health care insurer that we are going with, because it shure ain't going to be the government. And don't expect your National Insurance contributions to go down correspondingly.

Chesterton once said, ' To admire mere choice is to refuse to choose'. In saying this he identified what has become a growing phenomenon; the idea that choice trumps all. It's a good tactic for shutting down debate by branding those who question the values behind a choice as intolerant, and it's a good tool in government for shunting people in a direction they might not otherwise take, by portraying it as a choice.

I do not disagree with those who slam Geoffrey Clark on mandatory abortion. I am just so disappointed that the debate went no further. So much went unsaid this week, and an opportunity was missed to examine our own values with regard to those with DS. If we had done, maybe we would have realised how shockingly close our own views are to his. And maybe we would have made an informed, responsible choice to turn away from them.

Says it All, Really

I came across this picture of a poignant message left on a lamppost at the NHS protests from March.

Says it all, really.

The Child Exploitation Debate in the Commons - John Hemming's Speech

Here is some of John Hemming's speech from the Child Exploitation debate in Parliament today. For the full debate, click here.

As at 31 March 2011, 160 girls in care had had their first child before the age of 16 and 120 had had their first child at the age of 16. So what happens? We know that the girls at Duncroft school were punished for complaining about Jimmy Savile. If a child in the power of the local authority wishes to complain about their treatment, they have to complain to an employee of the local authority or someone funded by the local authority. Where is the independence in that? The lack of independence in the complaints system is why many cases of abuse are not picked up until the children subject to the abuse become adults—not necessarily at age 18 but when they get the required confidence aged 25, 30 or later. Very rarely, a Gillick-competent child in his or her mid-teens may make contact with one of the very rare solicitors who are willing to take on the local authority, but usually nothing happens at least until the children are adults.

One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police, Graham Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What hope did those children have? It is now roughly the fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is limited, but this is part of what he says:

“I would however simply for the record, remind readers what has been established from a number of credible and independent sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers, and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have since been publicly discredited.

The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”

This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I hope that the Minister will expedite it.

Teresa Cooper, who says that she was held down by six members of staff and injected with drugs while at Kendall House at the age of 14 and that she was also sexually assaulted in a drugged state, is continuing at the age of 45 to battle to get the evidence to find out why the Government did not act to stop that. We have a duty to provide her and other survivors with the records they ask for.

There have also been numerous police operations, including Operation Rose in Northumbria, Operation Care in Liverpool, Operation Aldgate and Operation Gullane in Yorkshire, Operation Goldfinch and Operation Flight in south Wales, and Operation Camassia in Birmingham. Frequently, such operations do not get to the bottom of the issues. A few, such as that in Kincora, managed to make the link between the abuse and people external to the institution. We need to empower the survivors by providing them with the information to argue their cases. Perhaps we can then also consider the question of who turned a blind eye.

It is often easier to see that there is a cover-up than to get to the truth. For example, if people listen to last Friday’s interview with Stuart Syvret on BBC Radio Jersey—it will be available on iPlayer for a few days—they will hear how the BBC is acting as a tool of the establishment by trying to prevent him from arguing his case. Mike Stein, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explains how widespread this problem was, with a possible one in seven of children in care being subject to abuse. Australia has implemented an all-embracing inquiry, which is a good idea, although the details are complex. I believe, however, that the priority should be to empower the survivors.

We also need to act urgently to find out what is happening to children in the care system today. In the year to 31 March 2011—I do not have the later figures—according to the SSDA903 return, 430 children aged one to four, 350 children aged five to nine and 630 children aged 10 to 15 left care for “other reasons”. These are the children who have left care and we do not know what has happened to them. Have they been trafficked, have they been abducted or have they run away to live on the streets because they were unhappy in the control of the state?

The statistical system used in the USA is called AFCARS—the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System— and records when children run away, but our Government do not bother. Clearly, they do not care sufficiently to ask local authorities to tell them. When I asked the erstwhile Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to record such instances and change the statistical basis, his response was that to find out nationally how many children are trafficked from care, abducted or run away would lead to

“an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 642W.]

We need to go further. We clearly cannot trust all local authorities to tell the whole truth about everything. We already have a system for auditing what happens to the money. We really ought to have a system for checking whether we are told the truth about what happens to the children, or do the Government only care about the money and not about the children?

The secrecy, lack of transparency and consequent failures in accountability clearly failed children in the past, but they are also failing children today. We need to protect the rights of children and adults to complain and bring in greater scrutiny of family court proceedings. It is the secrecy that arises from the family courts that allows the system to avoid scrutiny and local authorities to simply say, “We are acting in the best interests of the child,” when clearly they are not."

When is Something Going to be Done?

Came across this video on Guido Fawkes. I still can't quite believe the brazeness of it. When is something going to be done about this?

When a Coconut is not a Coconut

See this link for a summary of the forensic findings in Haut de la Guarenne.

Eton Style?

The SNP conference is on just now and some controversy was generated when Salmond referred to being run by Lord Snootys. As the above video shows, this is completely and totally unjustifed..

John Hemming, Super-Injunctions and Jersey

I reproduce without comment, this entry from Hansard. The date of the debate is Thurs 18th Sept, just two days before the Jimmy Savile allegations came out. You can find out who Andrew Marolia is from this link.

18 Sep 2012 : Column 859
There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly.