Evil Govt at it again

Care staff pledged legal protection over false abuse allegations

Please take a moment to read through the above....

Thank you.

I think personally and many may agree that the judgemnt by Lord Phillips is a travesty in itself and a stark message from the government to its people that care professionals and social services even can do WHATEVER they like as long as it does not lead to a child taking action against themselves.

Yet another right not so much eroded but ripped bleeding from our sides, it is licence to do harm, it is licence to do wrong.

What recourse now do we have, plainly in the UK there is no recourse for false allegations, you cannot sue, you cannot gain retribution for wrongs done, it is yet another example of caring Britain under Blair, Blunkett and Hodge.

Why does Lord Phillips do what he does?

If a child as a duty of care then so do the parents, the judgement assumes as the government do that there is only one viewpoint, that all of our children are straining to escape, that all children are abused, generalisations like this are exceptionally dangerous to the society of Britain but also to the children they are supposed to be mindful for.

It's a crock, pure and simple, this government is obsessed with promoting the child to some extent sainthood and there is no provision in their view for children that say things out of spite, for accidents, for malicious social workers and certainly no scope for anyone other than the parent for being wrong.

Lord Phillips chooses to disregard the ECHR again, why do the government still fail to accept their jurisdiction in our lives, I do not think Mr Blair has now or in the future honouring the ECHR conventions and will back his ministers on the downward spiral that is this country's future.

Its hard enough to get a solicitor to battle social services lest their names be stricken from the Guardian List of Solicitors which pays invariably more than Legal Aid, this is how Social Services force compliance from your solicitor, if he is seen to be too "uppish" then he loses future Guardian Solicitor Commissions, so now there's virtuallly no chance that your solicitor will take the challenge unless its a clearly criminal or other law branch type of case.

Why does the parent not have a duty of care, the local authorities and health authorities are law bound to work to the law itself, they have a legal duty to not transcend any immoral or illegal boundaries, so that to me says Duty of Care, after all, its not the same, the other way round, is it?

If you break the law, then they are after you big time...!

Wouldn't allowing it that there is a duty of care to the parents assist in restraining rampaging social workers and other agency workers, if they knew they would be sued for breach of their conduct, then wouldn't that put a brake on some of their activities.

HM Govt. is incredibly blind when it comes to social services and allied trades, it really does not see what we see, it believes the rubbish Hodge feeds them, which in turn she is fed by the councils themselves, either that or the Govt KNOWS full well what is going on and is trying to keep a lid on it whilst still allowing persecution of the parents themselves.

I smell though in this judgement some form of intervention, there is something not right as it fits right in with the governments viewpoint that parents do not matter in these cases, I smell government intervention in free law.

Blair has moved the goalposts again, to favour the worker, to favour the government but not to favour the child and never anything to favour the parent.

RPSSUK

Moving the Goalposts...again!!!
I will discuss here the implications of the judgement by Lord Phillips, Master of the Rolls, who incidentally lives in.... Dorset!!! My oh My what a surprise
So last year Social Services were given licence to do what they like, to whom they like as long as a child cannot sue them then they are safe.
Care staff pledged legal protection over false abuse allegations Lord Phillips Judgement in brief Please take a moment to read through the above.... Thank you. I think personally and many may agree that the judgemnt by Lord Phillips is a travesty in itself and a stark message from the government to its people that care professionals and social services even can do WHATEVER they like as long as it does not lead to a child taking action against themselves. Yet another right not so much eroded but ripped bleeding from our sides, it is licence to do harm, it is licence to do wrong. What recourse now do we have, plainly in the UK there is no recourse for false allegations, you cannot sue, you cannot gain retribution for wrongs done, it is yet another example of caring Britain under Blair, Blunkett and Hodge. Why does Lord Phillips do what he does? If a child as a duty of care then so do the parents, the judgement assumes as the government do that there is only one viewpoint, that all of our children are straining to escape, that all children are abused, generalisations like this are exceptionally dangerous to the society of Britain but also to the children they are supposed to be mindful for. It's a crock, pure and simple, this government is obsessed with promoting the child to some extent sainthood and there is no provision in their view for children that say things out of spite, for accidents, for malicious social workers and certainly no scope for anyone other than the parent for being wrong. Lord Phillips chooses to disregard the ECHR again, why do the government still fail to accept their jurisdiction in our lives, I do not think Mr Blair has now or in the future honouring the ECHR conventions and will back his ministers on the downward spiral that is this country's future. Its hard enough to get a solicitor to battle social services lest their names be stricken from the Guardian List of Solicitors which pays invariably more than Legal Aid, this is how Social Services force compliance from your solicitor, if he is seen to be too "uppish" then he loses future Guardian Solicitor Commissions, so now there's virtuallly no chance that your solicitor will take the challenge unless its a clearly criminal or other law branch type of case. Why does the parent not have a duty of care, the local authorities and health authorities are law bound to work to the law itself, they have a legal duty to not transcend any immoral or illegal boundaries, so that to me says Duty of Care, after all, its not the same, the other way round, is it? If you break the law, then they are after you big time...! Wouldn't allowing it that there is a duty of care to the parents assist in restraining rampaging social workers and other agency workers, if they knew they would be sued for breach of their conduct, then wouldn't that put a brake on some of their activities. HM Govt. is incredibly blind when it comes to social services and allied trades, it really does not see what we see, it believes the rubbish Hodge feeds them, which in turn she is fed by the councils themselves, either that or the Govt KNOWS full well what is going on and is trying to keep a lid on it whilst still allowing persecution of the parents themselves. I smell though in this judgement some form of intervention, there is something not right as it fits right in with the governments viewpoint that parents do not matter in these cases, I smell government intervention in free law. Blair has moved the goalposts again, to favour the worker, to favour the government but not to favour the child and never anything to favour the parent. RPSSUK