Oooh, If It’s ‘In A Systemised Manner’, We’ll Kick In The Doors!

Fifty police officers and 19 RSPCA inspectors were involved in early morning raids on houses in the Firthmoor area of Darlington, County Durham, acting on warrants issued on suspicion of animal cruelty.

That’s some operation! What was it based on?

There have been a series of reports from local people of cats and other animals being chased by dogs in an apparently systematic manner.

Ah! Well, good for them.

For once, this is the sort of action we expect from the police whose wages we pay, and the RSPCA whose wages we often also pay, albeit inadvertently:

Durham deputy chief constable Michael Banks said: "We are committed to protecting our rural communities and tackling rural crime. Animal welfare is an issue at the heart of those communities and we hope that this morning's raids reassure people that activities involving animal cruelty will not be tolerated." The RSPCA's chief inspector, Mark Gent, said: "I hope this sends a message to anyone involved in this kind of deliberate, abhorrent cruelty."

On the other hand, if it’s just one incident, then ‘Meh! Go see a solicitor, we’re not interested…’:

James Zammit heard barking coming from his garden in Bromley Common and when he went outside he saw two big Alsatians. He says one of them had his 10-year-old moggy Sock in its mouth.

Mr Zammit said: “The cat was dead and they were still mauling it and I threw a plank of wood at them to stop them.

“I saw the owner of the dogs and I told him what I thought of him and I phoned the police and they said it is a private matter.

“ I'm fuming and what has really annoyed me is the police saying I’ll have to take civil action.”

I guess they didn't get the memo about animal cruelty not being tolerated…

Or perhaps this doesn't count because you aren't part of a ‘rural community’?

A police spokesman said: “We were called on November 7 at 12.35pm by a man advising us that two Alsatians had entered his garden and killed his cat before running off.

"Unfortunately, as the incident occurred in a private premises, this is not covered by criminal law relating to dangerous dogs.

“It is important however to remember that victims can seek redress through the civil courts.

“This was obviously a very upsetting incident and we would remind dog owners of their responsibilities to control their animals. “It is not right that other peoples loved pets are being killed in this way."

It’s not right, but you aren't going to do anything about it. Even though, as a commenter points out, you can if you want to:

Outandabout says...

All too often the Police fob people off with 'it is a civil matter'. it isn't Section (3) of the Dangerous Dogs act says If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there— . (a)it injures any person; or . (b)there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, . he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. fair to assume that it could, by its action attack a child. The dog wasn't under control. Go back to the police and complain that they are not acting as they should. (If the police can charge a man who ate a coppers sandwich while waiting to help on an ID parade, they can act in this case)

Perhaps if you claim the dogs urinated on a poppy in your garden as well, you’ll see some police action, Mr Zammit? Or you could move to Florida? They don't mess about there!

Call A Whole Fleet Of Whaaaaambulances….

‘Frank’ an anonymous social worker, gets a column in ‘CiF’ to bleat about his job and how the politicians are ruining it:

In my nearly 30 years of practice as a social worker, I can say that the situation on the ground for social workers is worse than it has ever been.

Oh, here we go, hankies at the ready…

Social workers dedicate their lives to preventing the abuse of children, and sometimes, sadly, this is not possible. Child protection is an extremely complicated process – not only does it require very finely tuned and skilled decisions to be made, they have to be made within a detailed legislative framework. Contrary to the portrayal of social work in EastEnders, social workers do not simply pop by and check that everything is all right within a household, and whisk a child away at the drop of a hat if it isn't.

And some would say that that’s part of the problem. If there’s a more dysfunctional family than the one prortayed in ‘Eastenders’ I’d hate to see it. The poor (fictional) sprog would stand a better chance if it were raised by wolves…

Social workers spend the majority of their time navigating laborious and unwieldy data-collection systems… Most people would be astonished to see the amount of paperwork and form-filling we do.

Not really, no. They passed ‘astonishment’ long ago when looking at the police service’s paperwork burden.

And what caused both of these? Well, you seem to have hit the nail on the head, inadvertently:

Social work often feels like a virtual computer game where you have to complete stage 1 to move to stage 2. You are no longer able to use your own professional judgment.

That’s because so many of you have been found to have none!

You've ignored obvious cases of cruelty, either because you gave too much credence to ‘cultural issues’ or because you were incompetent or lazy. You've persecuted the innocent while ignoring the evil. The ‘unnecessary form filling’ that you complain about is part of your job because you are granted enormous power, and you must be accountable for its use.

Just like the police.

What’s the alternative?

The police probably hold more information pertinent to child protection than any other agency as they attend more out-of-hours incidents concerning a family, but their information sharing can be patchy. Police can be reluctant to share information concerning children for a number of reasons: criminal proceedings may be ongoing, they may have "soft" evidence garnered from intelligence rather than hard facts, there may be a surveillance operation under way.

And note, this is all one way. Do YOU share information with the police?

Or do you hide it from them, as you do when you are seeking to foster damaged children?

Cases such as Rochdale show what can happen when police and social services do not properly share information about children.

No, cases such as Rochdale show what happens when everyone’s too deathly afraid of ‘cultural issues’ and stirring up the Muslim 'community' to intervene. It has nothing to do with information sharing at all.

While I welcome attention being focused on tackling problems within our child protection system, the impetus for change will lead to little positive improvement if social workers who act day to day to protect children and help improve their lives are not listened to.

But we've listened to you. You've whined that you think it’s ‘unfair’ that you should be held accountable when you foul up. You've shown little shame when caught bang to rights, simply returning again and again to argue that, despite a child dying, you’re the ‘victim’ here.

We've listened. We just reject what you have to say.

“Look, It’s OK When We Do It!” (Part 459)

Mark Brown on Ed Milliband’s declaration of war on the belittling of mental health issues:

Perhaps unwittingly, Miliband has managed to get to the heart of a gnarly problem when he mentioned privilege – the perceived right enjoyed by people without mental health difficulties to speak with authority about those who do.

The ‘perceived right’? It’s no such thing.

I have an absolute right to speak as I please.

People can disagree, even point to my lack of experience on that particular issue to scorn my words, but there’s no doubt I have that right, no matter how people like Brown wishes it weren't so…

But he’s singing from a very, very familiar hymn sheet here:

I'm sure some of the comments on this article will say: "Why are you pesky people with mental health difficulties always looking to get offended? A joke's a joke!" But gags about people with mental health difficulties are different, because of where the power lies; they too often come from people who are reconfirming the status quo, defending attitudes and structures that prevent people with mental health difficulties achieving our potential. In other words, they are jokes and ideas that help "keep us in our place", out of sight and unheard.

On the other hand, jokes by people with mental health difficulties about mental health are often about the gap between outmoded ideas and lived experience, or about reclaiming common experiences from prejudiced interpretation. Sometimes, the comedy itself is directly confrontational: the live comedy nights May Contain Nuts and US comedian Rob Delaney being brilliant ambassadors of the genre.

Ahhh, yes. We've seen this argument before, haven’t we?

This is a good beginning; I now hope that Labour will continue to pay such attention to who is speaking about mental health and where their privilege lies as their policy development continues.

It seems to me that a lot of the ‘privilege’ now lies with the offence-takers.

So…can we start to ignore them?

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

A Southampton peer has sparked anger by suggesting retired people do community work in return for their pensions.

I think you've got that the wrong way wrong, chum. The pensions are a 'reward' for their work. Just like your stonking great civil service pension is a 'reward' for your w...

Oh. I  see.

Lord Bichard, who was educated at King Edward VI Grammar School in Southampton, said "imaginative" ideas were needed to avoid older people becoming "a burden on the state".

It takes some imagination to grasp quite how Bichard himself isn't a burden on the state. I don't think I've quite managed it yet...

During a meeting of a committee investigating the impact of the ageing society, he said: "Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?

"It is quite possible, for example, to envisage a world where civil society is making a greater contribution to the care of the very old, and older people who are not very old could be making a useful contribution to civil society in that respect, if they were given some incentive or some recognition for doing so."

We could make them peers of the realm, I suppose?

He added: "Are we using all of the incentives at our disposal to encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state but actually be a positive part of society?"

Soylent Green, anyone..?