bowling

bowling

Thursday 10 September 2015

Charities supporting children without ambiguity ?


Children lst Chief Executive, Alison Todd, has welcomed the news that the High Court has rejected the challenge to the Named Person scheme...

She said: "I warmly welcome the Court reaching a final decision. Children 1st has continuously supported the introduction of the role of a Named Person for every child across Scotland as a single point of contact for families... "

"I hope that the initiation of this policy next year will be accompanied by robust and comprehensive statutory and practice guidance that clearly outlines the functions of this vital role and removes any ambiguity relating to its purpose."

She obviously recognises that the guidance so far has been less than clear. Now why would this vital role - a single point of contact - lead to guidance which is ambiguous relating to its purpose?

There is only one answer to that. This is a policy trying to hide its true intention to data mine and profile every child and its family through the Named Person.

How carefully these political charities choose their words:

"Our work with families in communities across Scotland has demonstrated the importance of making sure there are accessible ways that vulnerable children are noticed and supported to keep them safe, well and in each and every professional`s mind. "

http://www.children1st.org.uk/what-we-do/news/2015/september/children-1st-welcomes-named-person-decision/

Even so, the idea of a single point of contact for every child in Scotland as a policy that is sustainable to protect vulnerable children breaks down easily enough.

For instance, there is this from the NSPCC, as reported in the Herald:

"Thousands of abused children are being left to fend for themselves according to a charity."

"The NSPCC revealed that counsellors from its ChildLine service, based across the UK including in Glasgow and Aberdeen, received nearly 100 contacts a week last year from children who have been abused."

"Many were suffering poor mental health as a result, and across the UK, the service counselled young people on 85,000 occasions with mental health related concerns. Children calling the free 24 hour service reported unhappiness, suicidal thoughts, low self-esteem and diagnosed mental health disorders such as bipolar. "

"Of the 85,000 calls over 5,000 involved children who also sought help for sexual or physical abuse."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/13709758.Abused_children_left_to_fend_alone__charity_claims/

Now the tendency of Peter Wanlesss, NSPCC Chief Executive, and Esther Rantzen, ChildLine founder, is to create the impression that thousands of children are being abused in their families. (Perhaps for political or fundraising purposes, who knows?) This article follows that pattern but it is misleading.

The statistics refer to telephone contacts, not children, and so it is impossible to know how many children are involved. Of the 5,000 calls seeking help for abuse, it is not clear what form the abuse takes or who is abusing the children. (Many children are bullied at school.)

Be that as it may, the vast majority of calls - 80,000 - are from children who are not claiming to be abused by anybody.

They are vulnerable children with mental health related concerns.

Bringing back the comments of Alison Todd, CEO of Children 1st;

"Our work with families in communities across Scotland has demonstrated the importance of making sure there are accessible ways that vulnerable children are noticed and supported to keep them safe, well and in each and every professional`s mind. "

But vulnerable children have already been noticed - no need for a Named Person. After all, the NSPCC has told us so, and these children are being left to fend for themselves.

Should Children 1st not be joining forces with the NSPCC to address the neglect, by services, of these vulnerable children instead of wasting valuable resources on supporting the Named Person for EVERY child in Scotland  policy - knowing most children in Scotland do not need any support, but these vulnerable and neglected children do ?
 

No comments:

Post a Comment