Council not intrested who do you contact

theEnd

JReacher1 wrote: »

50/50. Obviously the opinions they post are often irrelevant but when they are posting a news story then if you ignore the Daily mail rubbish the actual facts of the story are often true.

I realise some people like to say that if its in the Daily Mail it mustn't be true but thats just a bit of a weird opinion to have...

But often they'll create or 'enhance' the facts of the story to suit whatever agenda they have.

JimmyTheWig

gik wrote: »

Trying to link the baby P case and children walking to school is a nonsense.

I think it is a little relevant. As JReacher1 says...

JReacher1 wrote: »

What has changed in the last 8 years is that the Baby P case (2009) has meant social services are much more careful about situations where a child may be put in a dangerous position.

I.e. you could argue that since Baby P, social services will be more inclined to investigate and intervene in situations where even a mild danger is present. Baby P doesn't make walking home from school any more dangerous. But it may mean that social services will act on it.

As can be seen in the OP's case. It clearly backs up what JReacher1 is saying. As soon as the authorities were made aware of this child walking by themselves (given that this was post-Baby P) they got straight onto the case and sorted it out so that the child no longer walked home by themselves. Thus proving that Baby P is... um... huh?... what was that? They _didn't_ get straight on the case?

peachyprice

JReacher1 wrote: »

If you look on google you can find several case where social service has intervened as they are worried about cases like this.

e.g http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html

Why didn't you link to any in the UK then?

JReacher1 wrote: »

Doesn't alter the fact that the first post is the UK and social services got involved in a similar cas, of course I know from previous experience you like to selectively ignore certain facts when you argue

Nowhere in that article does it say that social services were involved, it only says the head teacher threatened to do so. Perhaps it is you ignoring certain facts?

Boris Johnson today slammed 'barmy' health and safety rules after a London couple were threatened with being referred to social services for letting their children cycle to school.

There is no reference whatsoever to any actual involvement of Social Services.

JReacher1 wrote: »

I

I have posted a UK (and admitedly a US) article that shows that social services have got involved in similar cases.....

No you haven't.

suicidebob

JReacher1 wrote: »

My apologies the nuance of my argument was too clever for you. I will try and explain in more simple terms.

The issue is that your argument is god-awful and not backed up with any facts or relevant evidence.

You've made a rather large fool of yourself.

suicidebob

JReacher1 wrote: »

50/50. Obviously the opinions they post are often irrelevant but when they are posting a news story then if you ignore the Daily mail rubbish the actual facts of the story are often true.

I realise some people like to say that if its in the Daily Mail it mustn't be true but thats just a bit of a weird opinion to have...

It's also weird that the Daily Mail is the best source you have to substantiate your argument.

JReacher1

suicidebob wrote: »

The issue is that your argument is god-awful and not back up with any facts or relevant evidence.

You've made a rather large fool of yourself.

Thanks for that Bob. I'll miss you when you kill yourself

LilElvis

JReacher1 wrote: »

My apologies the nuance of my argument was too clever for you. I will try and explain in more simple terms.

The baby P case highlighted problems with the social services where a concern about child neglect was raised and ignored leading to the tragic events we are all familiar with.

As a result of this social services are under a lot more pressure to ensure that all concerns about a childs welfare are properly investigated and appropriate action taken. In this case I would be very surprised if the parent was not visited by social services and a risk assessement was taken place.

I am not linking the two cases just saying that due to the Baby P case social services tend to be more on the ball. If you require any more clarification let me know and I will try and find a simpler method of explaining (this will probably involve crayons)

Bit of an assumption as the OP never answered repeated questions as to the nature and length of the child's walk.

JReacher1

LilElvis wrote: »

Bit of an assumption as the OP never answered repeated questions as to the nature and length of the child's walk.

Thats technically the point of a risk assessment. They will judge whether the distance, route and situation on arrival at home is. Hypothetically if its a 3 mile walk, across busy A roads and when they get home they sit for 5 hours in the dark waiting for their parents then social services would raise concerns.

If its 100 metres, doesn't involve crossing any major roads and the parents are in when they get home I doubt they would have any concerns.

Its social services job to decide whether the child is at risk. Its not the job of the MSE cabal

Morglin

Just don't leave a 12 year old, overnight, with friends, if you live in Cumbria:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914055/Charged-neglect-leaving-12-year-old-son-friends-Middle-class-couple-tell-police-state-treatment-holiday-Spain.html

Lin 😳

George_Michael

Morglin wrote: »

Just don't leave a 12 year old, overnight, with friends, if you live in Cumbria:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914055/Charged-neglect-leaving-12-year-old-son-friends-Middle-class-couple-tell-police-state-treatment-holiday-Spain.html

But the 12 year old wasn't initially with friends.

He was on his own for the first 2 nights and he was letting the guests into the B&B.
When the boy's school found out what was happening, they made a report to child protection which I consider to be the correct course of action.
With that particular case, I think it was correct to have started an investigation but this shouldn't have gotten as far as court once it was discovered what had gone wrong with the plans.