Credits to the nameless friend of a friend that wrote this, while working in the public sector...

Back in the dark ages - where families were left to fend for themselves, there was much wrong in society. There was no NHS, disability benefits, equal rights etc. Human rights extended to whether you were titled or not. Old age required dependence on your family and very few famlies lived any distance from each other.

When the 'welfare state' was set up it was with a 'noble notion' that a country could only judge itself on/by the way it treated its most vulnerable members (eldery, infirmed, sick and young). An amazing idea was put forward that did not exist anywhere in the world - that the state would step in where families were unable to care for their own kin.

It started with such things as the Public Assistance Act and the NHS - the NHS was healthcare free at the point of delivery and Public/National Assistance set the threshold for when the state was obligated to provide services or funding for vulnerable individuals.

Before 'state' support many poor had to rely on Charities and in those days it is quite well known that charitable work was done by middle class ladies who were not encouraged to undertake 'real work' (men's work). Charities developed and the power of those working or running these charities was immense - if you did not abide by their rules and regulations then you faced certain doom (starvation, eviction, homelessness etc). Added to this was the moral climate that single motherhood was against god and therefore unacceptable. Unmarried mothers who were not shielded by their family or where a relative or friend would not take the child as their own were forced either to live a life seperated from their family, often working in the worst jobs (including prostitution) and never having the prospect of marriage, or giving the baby up! Remember this is pre-abortion days.

I think we can all now see where the 'power lust' began. Charities were able to control every aspect of an indivdiual's life, even who they spoke to or whether they were allowed to go to the pub...

Part 2

As women began to win rights - including having careers, interest was focussed on the role of 'supportive services'. Even in the very beginning government saw a good opportunity to 'control' the masses. Social work started to develop not as a solution for social problems but more as a very underhanded and covert 'police force'.

In its very beginnings social work was based on the principle of 'best interest' - now this is where someone who 'thinks' they know best what is right for another person imposes their view (sound familiar). Interestingly child protection (or what existed of it) was handed over to the NSPCC - THE ONLY ORGANISATION THAT WAS LICENSED, BY ROYAL PREROGATIVE TO ENTER A PREMISES AND REMOVE A CHILD WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

As social work began to grow there was a need to organise this 'work force' and thus sprang the SSD. I suppose we are really post war now before the SSD's we recognise. As social work became more 'professionalised' (ie I'm not just a nosey bint who thinks they know better than you - but I am a professional nosey bint who thinks they know better than you) Legislation began to be passed not to regulate the SSD's but to regulate their clients.

The stigma of single parenthood stayed and children were removed in their droves to save them from the shame of being without a father. Children's homes sprang up (local authority) to match the already huge charity (including church) run homes. Increasingly the governement was starting to interfere with every aspect of private life and thus sprung even more powers to the SSD's. Especially where children were concerned the LA were given unassailable power - if we think we have it rough talk to a single parent from the 50's, 60's and early 70's.

Government was powerless to resist or regulate the new tide of sexual liberation hearlded by birth control and political hysteria raged that society would descend into chaos with so many children being born out of wedlock. Abortion was legalised, one option, and SSD's were allowed to develop their own criteria for removing children that had no relation to any form of abuse, hasn't changed much then - apart from they have to lie now.

During the 70's and 80's social work was accepted into mainstream accademia as part of social sciences (sociology and the like) and a new breed of 'professional' was being borne, those that thought because they had a piece of paper this mattered more than common sense or life experience. This new breed fast infiltrated the ranks of the higher eschelon. Without any real accademics in the departments and without any vestage of proper research or accountability the power of these departments grew - in line with their budget. The rule of thumb for politics has always been that the department with the biggest budget calls the shots.

The Children Act was a response to outcrys at the apparent madness (even then) of SSD's removing children - a particular documentary (was it Kathy, I think it was) made a real impact (remember only 3 TV channels, highest viewing figures and docudrama was a whole new concept). The Children Act really WAS a fine piece of legislation - outlining the obligations of SSD's to try and keep families together. No longer a stigma to be a single mother the government was fearful that a high percentage of the 'poor' poupulation was being 'cared for' in LA and other homes.

Massive revolt, of course, came after various failures of SSD's to protect children - Marie Kettle is a very good case in point,'and the uncovering of widespread abuse in homes (physical being higher than sexual abuse). The tide was beginning to turn. Mass education meant that people were not so easily fobbed off and some started to ruck against the 'power' of SSD's.

The trouble was that these departments were staffed by trenchent activists from the 'old school' that truly believed a title such as social worker actually meant you knew better than anyone else!

Toward the end of the 80's Thatcher (some loved, some hated) decided that too much public money was being spent on social services and long stay residential care (for mentally ill as well). By accident and without any altruistic purpose she set about axing all of these 'wastes of public funding'.

Suddenly social services had to 'justify' its very existance and the most powerful way of doing that was to ensure that politicians (at least) believed there to be rampant abuse in the country and that without SSD's this would go unchecked. SSD's focussed down on abuse and started to 'look' for it. Unfortunately, knowledge of abuse (such as in a case being investigated by the police) doesn't justify their involvement - no social services needed to find 'new' and 'hidden' abuse so that they could save the day.

Part 3

The media, now increasing in diversity and lacking in consistency played a vital role in communicating 'fear' to the general public - those whose taxes were being used to fund SSD's.

Although the media did cover big cases of incompetence they also regularly featured stories of the abused or the latest scandals. Whilst titilating the public it also planted the inscidious seed of 'moral panic'. Peadophiles were everywhere - YOUR CHILD IS NOT SAFE! That was the message and it worked.

For some inexplicable reason the police were not entrusted with child protection co-ordination. Social workers were able to usurp this power on the basis of their greater knowledge. Opinion mattered more than fact in the drama of abuse. To be honest 'morally' the decision was taken that opinion mattered more than freedom and more than evidence.

Thus the police were not asked or required to develop strong cp teams and the teams that existed relied upon the testimony of the social worker. Social work was not finished, it had (as I have alluded to in other threads) developed a 'circular theory' (that is one that doubles back on itself, this was:

"Any child alleging abuse must be believed...Any child denying abuse - where a social worker's opinion was that it had occurred - could not be believed."

Psychobable, twaddle and trash was talked by the accademics who 'borrowed' research from other disciplines (notably psychology) where they argued there were certain 'signs' of abuse. However, psychology has a basic RULE OR LAW - "correlation does not indicate causality". What this means is that because X and Y happen together a lot you cannot argue that X causes Y or Y causes X.

Funny example (not real) "dad goes to get a paper every night. He stays out till 10 and when he comes home he has a red face, laughs and falls all over the place". Okay so on the FACTS given someone researching this could say - getting a paper causes fathers to act in this way. We are more sensible and know that dad has been down the pub! But the pub isn't part of the research - only the paper is. Maybe dad didn't say about the pub, maybe he lied about being down the publ. So in this way psychologists say whilst getting a paper and dad comng home in a state happen together that is all we can say - we can't say buying a paper MAKES dad act this way.

Now because social workers and academics are sloppy on their actual theory - espcially if they haven't studied anything else, then they encourage the misuse of information. It actually suits their purpose. Using bits and pieces of research they were able to cobble together whole rafts of 'key indicators' of abuse and because they are so 'thick' they couldn't conceive that they were ever wrong - how could they be their reserach said they were not.

So a new set of rules appeared for investigations:

"If an adult denies they have abused their child they are lying, therefore we need to take the chldren to protect them;

If an adult admits they have abused a child then we need to take the chld to protect them."

Accademic theory has moved on BUT the people haven't... Social services are still determined to prove that they are needed and whilst they are able to do this then nothing will develop instead of them. The biggest weapon they command is fear.

--
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi