…it’s hardly surprising, though:
Local authorities accused of failed to prevent horrific child abuse scandals are expending “considerable intellectual effort” into finding reasons not to hold mandatory public investigations.
In a number of cases, officials successfully argued there was no need to hold a probe into a child being seriously injured by a violent parent if they later recovered from their injuries.And Cameron’s right, for once (and I don’t say that often), such people should be charged with whatever we can charge them with under current law, and if that’s not sufficient, then new laws need drafting:
The Prime Minister wants to extend an offence of “wilful neglect” to cover public servants and elected officials who fail to act on warnings of child abuse.
An official government review found more than 30 cases where local authorities wrongly refused to hold a Serious Case Review after a child suffered abuse.
Edward Timpson, the children’s minister, said the findings were “disturbing” .The expected chorus from the usual suspects – “Oh, this will be unfair & everyone will now be ultra cautious and we’ll get too many referrals! ” – can be safely ignored. They had their chance to do it right. They blew it.
It’s not as if the ones that do make it to a report stage are good enough, either:
When reports were carried out, bad ones outnumbered the good. Many were packed with “irrelevant detail, jargon and acronyms which make it difficult to discern the key events in the narrative,” the panel found.Tell me again how our public sector employees are only here to help improve our lot in life..?