# Shannon Matthews alive



## EMWSanctuaries (14 March 2008)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/home
thank G*d the child is safe


----------



## wizoz (14 March 2008)

OMG, thank goodness. I'm sure we will find out the reason why she went missing but it is so good to know she is alive.


----------



## Haniki (14 March 2008)

I've just seen that on www.bbc.co.uk
I'm amazed but very pleased.


----------



## reynold (14 March 2008)

what a large amount of effort the Police have put into this and now she's been in hiding !! - WHY didn't the Police find this out sooner - they were supposed to be checking family members


----------



## jeanettethree (14 March 2008)

Great News !


----------



## The Virgin Dubble (14 March 2008)

Really pleased that she's safe and well, but WTF??

How can a child hide under a bed at her grandparents for three weeks??

I do hope that the police press charges against anybody who might have obstructed them during this very costly and time consuming investigation...


----------



## Tinkerbee (14 March 2008)

thank goodness shes been found


----------



## _Libby_ (14 March 2008)

Was she in her grandparents???!


----------



## trundle (14 March 2008)

I think the grandparents story is wrong - it seems she was concealed in the base of a double bed, and a man has been arrested. The poor kid, i hope she is all right mentally as well as physically. Can't imagine how her mother must be feeling, i think I would just hug her and never let go.


----------



## not_with_it (14 March 2008)

They did check all family members, believe me. She wasnt with a family member.

Thank God she is safe and well, and well done to the police. They have put so much effort into this case.


----------



## disco (14 March 2008)

I'm so pleased she's been found alive, poor girl and her poor mother, family etc.

I just hope that nothing awful happened to her, bless her


----------



## FinellaGlen (14 March 2008)

Very good news.


----------



## JM07 (14 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
They did check all family members, believe me. She wasnt with a family member.

Thank God she is safe and well, and well done to the police. They have put so much effort into this case. 

[/ QUOTE ]










as i understand she was foung at her Paternal Grand parents house.....


----------



## The Virgin Dubble (14 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]









as i understand she was foung at her Paternal Grand parents house..... 

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought too...


----------



## happyhack (14 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
I think the grandparents story is wrong - it seems she was concealed in the base of a double bed, and a man has been arrested. 

[/ QUOTE ]

He was a member of her extended family


----------



## Paddywhack (14 March 2008)

Thank God that she is safe home


----------



## JM07 (14 March 2008)

i stand corrected...blimey....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7296756.stm


----------



## carthorse (14 March 2008)

Thank God.
I believe a lady who lives in a flat below heard footsteps and gave the police a tip off.http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newsw...p;template=/news/feeds/story-template-pa.html


----------



## Daisychain (14 March 2008)

Absolutely fantastic news, thank god, miracles can happen.


----------



## Donkeymad (14 March 2008)

Crikey, where did some of these stories come from?

I am amazed but delighted that she has been found alive and reasonably well.


----------



## Skhosu (14 March 2008)

fantastic news, but why is she not back home?


----------



## carolmalin123 (14 March 2008)

Thank god.  I just hope the poor kid gets over her ordeal as quickly as possible.


----------



## YorksG (14 March 2008)

She is not likely to be returned to the family home until she has been declared medically fit, or until the media have moved on. Iwould imagine that there will have to be a lot of work done with her to adjust to what has happened.


----------



## polyphonic (14 March 2008)

glad she has been found alive and relitively in good help!

Maybe her mom can open some of those cases of beer they were photographed carrying into the house the other day!


----------



## JM07 (14 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
fantastic news, but why is she not back home? 

[/ QUOTE ]

if she has a choice, i'm sure she wouldnt want to..would you???


----------



## Fantasy_World (14 March 2008)

I am glad to hear the news that she is alive and well ( we hope?) but there is something very strange about this case and the fact she has been taken into care.
I dare not comment further on the matter though and say what I think due to libel laws, however I am very concerned.


----------



## polyphonic (14 March 2008)

my thoughts exactly!


----------



## elliegirl12 (14 March 2008)

i am soo happy about the news but it might b because of the media?


----------



## orton (14 March 2008)

I really hope this "Little girl" is ok and not traumatised,  I have to confess only today I discussed this topic and said as I assumed she would be dead.  What an absolute 5* outcome.  I have a nearly 12yr daughter myself and can't even to begin to imagine the trauma of her going missing!!!

My absolute heart and prayers for this little girl go to her.


We are a nation letting our little babes grow up tooo quickly, I only hope there are other parents like me that see this and stop their little girls going to school looking like hookers with two ton of slap on their face, big dangly earings and more than too much of a knowledge of boys.

I hope the above hasn;t offended anyone, but more given them a wake up call that kids are trying to act far above their years, and above morals that the majority of us mere 35+ - 40+ parents would like to call acceptable. My little girl of nearly 12yrs and attending senior school is already attempting boyfriends, going to school looking like a tramp and wearing two tonne of slap and giving it the "VICKY POLARD" speach.  I have clamped down more than 100 fold.  Its NOT happening in my household in NO UNCERTAIN terms regardless of "WOT THE REST OF MY FREINDS!" are doing.

Sorry but I think too much of a mamby pamby state come American view is going with these kids and parents.

SORRY TOTALLY OFF THE SCALE OF SHANNON. JUST HOPING I'M NOT THE ONLY VICTORIAN STATE OF MIND 35+ PARENT THAT SEES WHATS GOPING ON WITH KIDS TODAY


----------



## orton (14 March 2008)

It says it all really with regards mother.  6 kids by 5 different fathers!


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

How does it make a difference to a child of nine going home from school and being abducted, how many partners her mother has had. letting a child of 9 walk home from school on her own is nowhere near as irresponsible as the parents who left three under 4's in a hotel room while they went out for a meal, but of course they were middle class 'nice' people, who were married to each other and had no children from previous marriages. I didn't see any one suggesting that Madeline McCann would not want to go home.


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

so you have to be over 35 to be a decent mother with morals?? What a ridiculous idea!!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	






Just because a mother has children by different fathers and doesnt shop in laura ashley doesnt make her a bad mother. Granted, allowing a 9 year old child to walk home alone from school in an area like that is, IMO unacceptable, and verging on neglect, but do remember that many children  from deprived or what you might deem as morally wrong backgrounds grow into perfectly 'normal' members of society.

Maybe in your day single mums had their babies whipped away from them in shame, but times have changed, and both un married mothers and mothers under the age of 35 are actually socially acceptable 
	
	
		
		
	


	




. 

I do know of someone who refused to allow their 12 year old to wear makeup, only to find the child went to school, got changed and slepped makeup on for the day, and removed it before coming home. 
allow a child to make well informed choices and they will grow into responsible young adults. Clamp down on them and they will have no respect for their fuddy duddy parents.


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

The mother has children at the Infant school and the Junior school, the schools are about a mile apart, she therefore ensured that she collected the younger children from school. There are a number of children on the estate who walk home from the junior school together, so are usually reasonably safe. The choice to collect the younger children is surely the more responsible, the parents on that estate have to walk their children to school as most do not have access to private transport.


----------



## alleycat (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
  I hope the above hasn;t offended anyone, but more given them a wake up call that kids are trying to act far above their years, and above morals that the majority of us mere 35+ - 40+ parents would like to call acceptable. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

As a rather more than 35+- 40+ parent (and ex-child; remember? 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) I think this is the whole nature &amp; essence of growing up; and the parental rant against it sounds awfully familiar; and would probably sound familiar to my great-great granny, etc. etc.. 

Its a difficult balancing act; trying to protect a child at the same time as letting it develop and grow up; and I don't think its really anything to do with what make up they wear or whether they have boyfriends. Its about independance, confidence &amp; self esteem.

As for the iresponsibility of walking to school; a 9 year old? I was walking to school (in the outskirts of London) as a 6 year old; as all kids did in those (not quite Victorian) days. I thought kids were being encouraged to return to this, on heath grounds?

Would also add, I wonder how we would feel, following the trauma of losing a child, to have our private lives pawed over by every parenting guru on the internet. I doubt that any of us is so blameless in our personal lives that a juicy moral couldn't be drawn from our distress.


----------



## goeslikestink (15 March 2008)

the most important thing is shes safe 

tend to agree with allycat as i to am an older londoner

they do say its nearly always some one you know or know off
and i know only to well the implications of when a child has been lets say hurt by others as my sister son was got at by a peadefile
of whome she had no idea lived on the floor beneath her

set her son back many years he was nie then now at 14 and with the help of his family and her new husband has turned out to be a nice young man

but those early years were awful, its not something that just effects the child or the imedate family it effects the aunts the cousins the schools and later his own education or later still is he capaberable of getting a job holding his own to become a decent human being

when people take away the innocense of a child  forwhat ever reasons they really havent got a clue of  how that effects there whole way of life and how they then look at things and also the people around them

people have strange reactions to a vitimalso my sister suffered spitting and all kinds of stuff from neighbours on the same estate
she stood her ground and ignored them but how does one tell a child that becuase you were caught by a  P,, you get the rough stuff to and are classed  as dirty etc when in truth your not

all he was doing at that time was playing with his toys outside her front door on the landing-- was she not looking after him
or not caring for him-- her door was open and he was playing cars with another child right outside her door


so yeah i hve  strong views both as a mother and as a person from outside looking in--

we can all say if only's or was it this or that and yeah  i would nt have let my child walk home on there own at that age unless
they was in a group and  agroup known to stay together and 
my sister wouldnt either

its not wether you allow your child to wear ear rings and bling and make up

its how you bring them up  wether you have been taught the values of good and bad and know whats wrong some people dont know good from bad  ie brought up in a place of say drinking , drugs and violence its becomes second nature to them  as they think thats the  way to behave in society as they have not  been taught or shown any better

i am glad shes safe but i dont know if the mums envolved or not
if it was a stunt or not  
all i know is its not easy when things happen and you have no control over
all you can do is be there for the persons or persons envloved and help pick up the peices  so they may  have some sort of order and decent quality of there time whilse they still here

and just  to remind you when a child has suspected of  xyz boys or girls they get tested  for it - just another ordeal they children have to go through which i can assure you isnt nice

who do i feel for the child------ i honestly thought she was dead
now all we can do is hope she has a decent life and pull herself  together to become  the perosn she going to be as her innocent childhood has been riped from her at 9

9 her mum is going to need all the help she can get-- from
encoragement via neighbours not vitimise her or her child 
as some will 

i hope shannon you  can get over your ordeal  dont balme yourself or harm yourself be brave and strong and be the person you are - a lovely little girl with your whole life in front of you

good luck  and god bless you xx


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

I'd also like to add (was late last night) that not one of us is perfect and even older parents from well off backgrounds make mistakes (McCanns? ). Sometimes those mistakes end with a child getting a scraped knee, and we kick ourselves and learn from it. For some the outcome is far worse, and the parent will spend the rest of their life paying for that mistake. 

Thank God, in this instance that the child has been found safe and well. My thoughts and prayers are with this family and hope that someday they can put this behind them.


----------



## carthorse (15 March 2008)

I am reserving judgment on this case ,it may be complicated , I just hope her life will work out ok and that her family will think about what has happened


----------



## michellepearson1 (15 March 2008)

Its good news that Shannon is alive but very strange she is now in the care of the Local Authority under an Emergency Protection Order.

As a Child Protection Social Worker myself - something aint right in the family home for the courts to grant that!!


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

My impression is that the Emergency Protection Order is the result of the mother being vulnerable and not having the emotional resources to protect the child. At the time she went missing, the Police highlighted that Shannon told a school friend that she didn't want to go home. There is a stepfather and according the the papers, he beats the mother. Given that the Man who had Shannon is a relative of the stepfather ('known to the Police' uses more than one name etc). The powers that be would be likely to want to see a strong, independant minded, resourceful mother in order to feel happy for her to return home. 7 children by 5 or 6 men and living with a violent man, suggests mum is a psychologically vulnerable person who needs help herself


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

Such speculation from a Child protection Social Worker is unhelpful and against the spirit of our code of practice.


----------



## michellepearson1 (15 March 2008)

An Emergency Protection Order is made when a child/ren are at risk of significant harm and that harm could be a number of things.

No doubt the powers that be will ensure that all the family are supported and any decisions that are made will be in the best interest of the child/ren.

 Im sorry that people see that as speculation and has upset you.


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

The part that was speculation was about problems in the family. Of course this child is at risk at the moment, her circumstances are after all somewhat unusual. I was just surprised that a fellow professional would speculate about the reason for THIS epo on a forum such as this.


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

QR. 

If the abducter was indeed a member of the family then this alone would be enough to allow SS to place an order on the child. 

This is often a formality to protect the family. It just means SS either take the child into temporary care to assess the child's mental wellbeing (and the accusations of violence at home could mean SS have had no choice but to take the child into care for now), or keep an extra close eye on them. 

Quite often when a family member has been accused of or sentenced because of a violent offence the children in that family will immediately be put on the 'at risk' register. SS do this simply to ensure the child is happy at home, and that the child is not at risk. They are non evasive and often a child being under their watch allows the family help with getting back on their feet that would not otherwise be available to them.


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

True, but in the circumstances, mother and child would not be housed separately unless there were concerns that the mother may not (for whatever reason) protect her. For instance, could you see the child of a loving middle class family not going home when found?


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

The mother was not necessarily housed seperately from the child last night, at least I saw nothing that said she was.


----------



## xxxtinkerbellxxx (15 March 2008)

Ok, as I worked in ss for many years, within child protection I will tell you what I know and the situation as I understand it, although you must understand I am not privvy to the finer details of this case.
An emerg protect order has been made so that ss can make further enquiries as to the safety of Shannon within her own home. 
This is not really standard proceedure and I can only summise that there is more going on or has gone on than has meet our eyes within her family unit. Bless the little lamb. xxx tinkerbellxxx


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

yes, a 9 year old child was abducted by a family member.... that is what has gone on, along with rumours of beatings at home... if SS suspect that a family member has been violent towards a child then it is pretty standard procedure to remove the child from that environment. the mother may well have stayed with the child, but under the eye of SS.


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
yes, a 9 year old child was abducted by a family member.... that is what has gone on, along with rumours of beatings at home... if SS suspect that a family member has been violent towards a child then it is pretty standard procedure to remove the child from that environment. the mother may well have stayed with the child, but under the eye of SS. 

[/ QUOTE ]

and we all know the short comings of Social Services don't we.......


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

She is tonight, she has jut been filmed at home. Like you though, I'm reluctant to speculate any further on a public forum.


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

Do we? Care to expand?


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Do we? Care to expand? 

[/ QUOTE ]

from maria colwell....

to victoria climbie.....

i'm sure you are familiar with Prof, N. Parton's paper????


and all the others who have been let down by the "system".......

same sh1t, different day...always the kids who suffer from the incompetence of those assigned to protect them.....


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

What about all those protected by the system? The media always like to critisize the professions, and in social work it's damned if you do (child snatchers for no reason) and damned if you don't (something should have been done). I am (fortunately!) not a child care social worker, I am a psychiatric social worker, we don't get a much better press and I would ask those who comment with only knowledge from the media to ask to spend some time shadowing those who do the job befor you rush to judgement.
The children actually suffer from those who harm them.


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
What about all those protected by the system? The media always like to critisize the professions, and in social work it's damned if you do (child snatchers for no reason) and damned if you don't (something should have been done). I am (fortunately!) not a child care social worker, I am a psychiatric social worker, we don't get a much better press and I would ask those who comment with only knowledge from the media to ask to spend some time shadowing those who do the job befor you rush to judgement.
The children actually suffer from those who harm them. 

[/ QUOTE ]

if hands are so tied...then what is the point of "social workers"?

and who's to say i'm only commenting from "knowledge from the media"???



even from a Sun Readers point of view, which TBH isnt vast, it hasnt got that much better over the last 35yrs, has it???


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

every profession has it's bad and good sides. Some social workers are asses, some live for their job and devote themselves to it. 

If we all believed what we read in the papers then all horse dealers would be cruel sods who ripped people off.


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2008)

No one said hands were tied, and if this is from a sun readers point of view then I think that says all that needs to be said, don't you? Hardly an in depth perspective after all.


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

Its a 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' situation IMO. At the risk of causing a flurry of outrage - I find (from a related profession) that social Workers are poorly trained, with poor CPD and poorly paid. So the brightest and the best leave and become Child Welfare officers for the courts, advance up the management structure in social Services or retrain as something else.

In addition to being poorly trained, poorly paid and frequently poorly managed, they are usually desparately understaffed. They don't stand a chance of being consistently competent. It will take the goverment to actually give a damn about effective child protection and be prepared to provide a realistic budget for it, before things will improve.


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
every profession has it's bad and good sides. Some social workers are asses, some live for their job and devote themselves to it. 

If we all believed what we read in the papers then all horse dealers would be cruel sods who ripped people off. 

[/ QUOTE ]

i personally dont believe jack-sh1t of what may or may not be reported in the press...

what my point was, is NOTHING has improved for these kids AT ALL in 35 yrs..

the people EMPLOYED at some considerable expense, paid for by the average tax-payer in this country, should be acountable for these so called dissadvantaged kids....

am i wrong in saying Social Workers are there for the well-being of their clients????
am i wrong to assume that that Shannon's "family" are known to Social Servces?
am i wrong in assuming that this family is on the "at risk" register?


probably not.....................................


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense!


----------



## itsme123 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Its a 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' situation IMO. At the risk of causing a flurry of outrage - I find (from a related profession) that social Workers are poorly trained, with poor CPD and poorly paid. So the brightest and the best leave and become Child Welfare officers for the courts, advance up the management structure in social Services or retrain as something else.

In addition to being poorly trained, poorly paid and frequently poorly managed, they are usually desparately understaffed. They don't stand a chance of being consistently competent. It will take the goverment to actually give a damn about effective child protection and be prepared to provide a realistic budget for it, before things will improve. 

[/ QUOTE ]

here here


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense! 

[/ QUOTE ]

they certainly are if collectively they continue to get bad results.........

good job they aren't on piecework..


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense! 

[/ QUOTE ]

they certainly are if collectively they continue to get bad results.........

good job they aren't on piecework.. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ] A sensible view of this has to take account of the market. The best people don't remain in poorly paid jobs and for the level of responsibilty and high stress that is part and parcel of being a child care social worker, it is a poorly paid job! So you have a group of avarage, some below avarage graduates who are then poorly trained and poorly managed. The blame lies at the feet of the system, not the individual social worker!


----------



## JM07 (15 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense! 

[/ QUOTE ]

they certainly are if collectively they continue to get bad results.........

good job they aren't on piecework.. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ] A sensible view of this has to take account of the market. The best people don't remain in poorly paid jobs and for the level of responsibilty and high stress that is part and parcel of being a child care social worker, it is a poorly paid job! So you have a group of avarage, some below avarage graduates who are then poorly trained and poorly managed. The blame lies at the feet of the system, not the individual social worker! 

[/ QUOTE ]

surely a poorly trained and a poorly managed social worker can tell the difference between an abused child a not abused child???...given their not inconsiderable training?

i'm sorry...but "blaming the system" doesnt wash with me...

and before you say the trainings flawed....havent these people got voices?
can they not ask questions?
do they not voice an opinion?


----------



## Fantasy_World (15 March 2008)

mmm I could add more to the mix but will not comment or speculate about the Shannon case on an open public forum for fear of libel as we do not know the true and accurate facts surrounding the little girl's disappearance. All that we ( as the public) know is what information has been released to the press.
For what it is worth I too have little faith in Social Services. I have had a friend who had dealings with them and I also know someone who deals with them and I dare not repeat on a public forum what professional misjudgements have taken place.
A very basic requirement for any post that involves children and involves the provision of care, protection and advice for them - and that includes social workers, health visitors etc - should be that the candidates are of a certain age and should also have had children themselves before they can qualify to be trained for the position!
I feel very strongly about this and I do think that is why there are so many children that slip through the protection net and are basically let down by a department whose job it is to protect vulnerable young people.
Only the other day I had a lady telephone me about donating to the NSPCC through DD. While I would have normally considered doing this the lady employed tactics to try and emotionally blackmail me and she conveyed a story to me about abuse as an example of what my money would be spent towards trying to help stamp out.
I pointed out that while their charity was a good one and that they offered support to children most of the children they were helping was due to the failings of the Social Services department.
I do not mind giving money to help others at all but I do not agree with mopping up after the mistakes and failings of others.
I know that not every social worker is unprofessional and 'good' ones do exist but my personal experience of a proportion of these individuals is not a good one.
If money and time is an issue then perhaps the government should consider diverting more funds to this department in order to train and employ more people.
However like I have already mentioned I don't believe that to be the answer to the overall problem.
My overall view of Social Services seems to fail by its very staff in that there are individuals who are either over zealous or else fail to recognise important child protection issues.
I cannot comment any further by what I have said due to confidentiality but my comments and views are founded by what I have seen and heard.


----------



## Stella (15 March 2008)

Child protection is much more complex than that! Has the child been abused or was it an accident? If its been physically abused or neglected, who did it? Can the parent protect it from abuse/neglect/further abuse/neglect?  If not, can resources be put in place to enable the parent to do this or should we remove the child and place it in a children's home or with foster parents (if there are any places available) (both happy hunting grounds for paedophiles). If it is removed can it safely have contact with parents and siblings? If so, supervised or unsupervised. And that is just Physical abuse and Neglect. Its even more foggy with sexual abuse, psychological abuse and corruption (and these cause much more long term damage than most physical abuse). Could you wade through that with inadequate training and management. If they speak up about the problems, they find themselves out of a job, so we are back to the best having left!  


That aside though,  what is your answer then? Have no child protection? Or do it differently i.e. change the system?


----------



## alleycat (16 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
  A very basic requirement for any post that involves children and involves the provision of care, protection and advice for them - and that includes social workers, health visitors etc - should be that the candidates are of a certain age and should also have had children themselves before they can qualify to be trained for the position!


[/ QUOTE ] 

Nice thought; I can see where you're coming from, but for this to have real relevance they would also need to have experienced bringing up their children in the sort of destructive poverty that afflicts a lot (the majority?) of their clients; the substandard housing, the healthcare shortfall, the poor employment prospects, the shortage of- everything, really, that money can buy.  

Otherwise we would be left with a situation like that in which that patronising idiot of an MP (forget who he was now)-with, doubtless, a warm, dry house; a wardrobe full of clothes; a fridge full of food; a paid-up supply of electricity etc. &amp; 2 weeks in the Bahamas to look forward to, made a big show out of surviving for a couple weeks on £40 a week, saying that it really wasn't too difficult so what were the poor complaining about?

(I must say that despite the undeniable and unforgiveable horror stories, the couple of social workers I've met personally have actually both been clued up, sympathetic, dedicated intelligent people. My own bugbear is the incredible incompetence and overbearing attitude of council Housing Depts, who IMO create a lot of the problems that the Social Services have to deal with.)


----------



## Fantasy_World (16 March 2008)

The MP was Michael Portillo if I remember correctly.
I can see where you are coming from too but from the point of view of social workers etc having brought up their children I meant that they could bring life experience into a job. Being able to recognise simple signs in a baby such as colic, hungry, cold, ill, distressed. Likewise being able to recognise when a mum needs help or time out. How can you recognise the signs of a mum who has post natal depression or who is running on empty unless you have raised your own child and been up throughout the night feeding and changing baby or dealing with any issues.
Without sounding ageist but how could a young pip squeak just out of education who has then qualified as a social worker who's own experience of children would only be if they had had younger brother or sisters be able to empathise and recognise basic child welfare unless they had actually raised their own children themselves?
That was what I meant about having had children.
The class issue doesn't really come into although if I were to train for such a role I could identify with many of the clients having experienced housing issues and monetary problems in the past.
I will still never be convinced by the role of social services until there is a change to the service and it undertakes a complete overhaul.
I also have some knowledge of the fostering and adoption system as a former good friend was - and still is one as far as I know- one and I was told stories of incompetence by that person  too. 
So like I have said I have little faith in the system through my own experiences but that does not mean my overall assumption of social services is wholly correct because others have had more positive experiences.
But there is a need for change. How many more lives will be affected and how many children be put at risk unnecessarily before the decision makers recognise that requirement?


----------



## YorksG (16 March 2008)

By that criteria all police officers should have been offenders, all solicitors should have been defendants, all nurses and dcotros should have been patients (in what ever specialism they work in) 
As a psychiatric social worker I whould have suffered from schizophrenia (all versions of it), Bi-polar disorder, depression, all the Known varieties of personality disorder and complex PTSD, NOT POSSIBLE i'M AFRAID


----------



## alleycat (16 March 2008)

Well, you've heard the expression "Poacher turned gamekeeper!"  

I think in any field its those who have empathy with their clientele who are most competent &amp; successful. 

No.... by analogy you wouldn't have needed to personally HAVE these disorders, but to have experienced the effects of such a disorder on your personal, private life; perhaps through a relative being a sufferer.

Maybe not a totally practical requirement - but I think in a lot of areas we will have seen the effects of the person with the paper qualification &amp; no practical experience trying to cope in the real world. (A few years ago this was very true of the horse world; and I've seen a young girl with BHS qualifications totally at a loss as to what to do with a stroppy young horse; she'd never had to deal with one in the super-safe environment in which she had been taught. I'm not suggesting, of course that she ought to BE a horse in order to be qualified; just that she should have had experience of the real article  
	
	
		
		
	


	




).

Trouble is, with something like social work- or council housing offices- the inexperienced "expert" still has a lot of power over the most personal aspects of people's lives.


----------



## Fantasy_World (16 March 2008)

"By that criteria all police officers should have been offenders, all solicitors should have been defendants, all nurses and dcotros should have been patients (in what ever specialism they work in)
As a psychiatric social worker I whould have suffered from schizophrenia (all versions of it), Bi-polar disorder, depression, all the Known varieties of personality disorder and complex PTSD, NOT POSSIBLE i'M AFRAID"

That was not was I was suggesting so please don't go twisting my words on this forum.
I could not care less if you are a social worker or not to be honest.
I have valid reasons for my responses on this forum and I am not at liberty to discuss the reasons and cases behind my perception of social services.
Confidentiality laws are there for a reason within professions especially health and social care.
All I can say is that I have both seen and heard about errors of judgement and mistakes that should not have been made and the majority of the time this was done by jumped up -their own arses - newly qualified and young social workers with no children and no experience with them!
Mistakes that could have seriously endangered the lives of some children.
So please don't go preaching about social services and what they do and don't do and what indeed you do.
You cannot speak for the whole profession just as I cannot speak for the rest of the members of this forum.
If I criticise anybody it is with good reason.
I don't lie or elaborate the truth to the extent that it is far fetched.
If I could quote the cases and information that I know without any implications for the people involved I would. However with respect to professionals and breeching confidentiality I cannot say what I want to say and that does frustrate me as I am the kind of person who likes to give and quote reasons behind any comments or decisions I make.
I think we will most probably agree to disagree and that is personal choice. However I was angered by your flippant and rather pedantic remark about police should be former offenders etc as that was not what my comments were referring to and you should have understand that given your professional understanding.


----------



## Moggy in Manolos (16 March 2008)

its incredible really, i would never have thought they would have found her alive after all that time, bet her family are so relieved


----------



## michellepearson1 (21 March 2008)

IM sorry but to become a social worker takes lots of time and effort at college then university and then once qualified you still have to continue your training.  social workers are now registered which has to be renewed yearly and every three years you have to complete forms showing the training you have completed.  

There are lots of social workers out there doing a fantastic job within society and it is due to bad media that gives social workers a bad name.  I mean how many papers would be sold if the headlines said "social worker keeps children within the family by supporting the family through hard times"  not many!


----------



## Stella (21 March 2008)

As you will see from my earlier posts, I think the training and CPD is inadequate, so I guess we disagree there (and yes I know they go to Uni and are registered, but that alone doesn't make it adequate - there are lots of inadequate uni courses!). I Also find that they are short staffed and lack support from their Management!

My opinions are based on my extensive experiences of working many of the same cases, not on media reports!


----------



## YorksG (21 March 2008)

Perhaps as you described Social Workers as monkeys you would like to tell us what job you do? You obviously have a very poor opinion of EVERYONE who has taken on a role that many people would not have the patience, skill or courage to do. The remuneration is not good, it is on a par with nursing with regards to salary, another set of monkeys perhaps?


----------



## Stella (21 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps as you described Social Workers as monkeys you would like to tell us what job you do? You obviously have a very poor opinion of EVERYONE who has taken on a role that many people would not have the patience, skill or courage to do. The remuneration is not good, it is on a par with nursing with regards to salary, another set of monkeys perhaps? 

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, hey! Are you sure you are not confusing me with another poster or skim reading my posts?  Just where have I described SWs as Monkeys? I think SWs have a unfair rough time. I have met several along the way who were very good at the job - too good to be treated badly (too many cases, too poor management) and paid badly. Inevitably, one after another they have left and gone to work for what used to be called the Guardian ad Litum Service or a NHS multi-discilpinary team! I have no doubt that there are a small number of good ones in social work still trying to soldier on.

I certainly wouldn't be a SW, they are expected to do the impossible without even being provided the resources to do the avarage!


----------



## YorksG (21 March 2008)

Many social worker who work within NHS multi-disciplinary teams are actually still employed by Social Services, and indeed must be to be ASW's. If it wasn't your post which stated that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys then I apologise, but I was pretty sure it was.


----------



## Stella (21 March 2008)

I know they are still employed as SWs in a lot of NHS multi-disciplinary teams. My point is that they are not doing the job of field workers. Rather than referring to poor SWs I probably would have been better referring to field workers.

I may have used the 'you pay peanuts, you get monkeys' phrase. I didn't mean that SW generally are monkeys, but that the best tend to leave field work due to the conditions and poor pay. I have to say that most of the field workers I have met (in Child Protection) who haven't either later left field work, or told me they intended too, have been pretty poor 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Two close fiends are trained SWs and were desparate to get out. One was a team leader (on ridiculously low pay for the level of responsibility), the other a field worker who moved to a multi-disciplinary NHS  mental health team after a baby died due to management refusing to listen to her concerns (and even telling her that if she knew what was good for her, she would stop making waves). She had been the trained SW on the case before she was moved off it and a untrained support worker allocated!

As I said earlier, I don't think the the problems are caused by SWs, but by the awful system which is done on the cheap!


----------



## YorksG (21 March 2008)

You did indeed use that phrase and also suggested that the people who went into social work were the poorest graduates. I think you will agree that this is a combination which suggests the deepest disrespect for every member of that profession.


----------



## alleycat (21 March 2008)

Well, people with a good academic qualification ARE going to want to get a financial return from it and ARE going to move out of a stressful or ill-paid job - because they can. That's how it is. 

What saddens me is that academic success should figure at all in this; I suspect that the very LAST thing that makes a good social worker is having a "good" degree. 

Over the years I've come to realise that the world goes round largely because a lot of not-very-well qualified or paid people are in fact very good at their jobs, and its very, very wrong to assume that the people who are at liberty to move up in a profession are actually the most competent. I once wanted to be a teacher &amp; studied for a year at a Teacher Training college- (Horrible!-definately not for me-I was totally inadequate and so thankful to leave)- but it was very noticeable that that particular college was largely staffed by academically well qualified but not-very-good teachers, enjoying the enhanced salary and social standing of lecturing, whilst on the run from the classroom...


----------



## YorksG (21 March 2008)

Not necessarily, and it is a generalisation which needs to be challenged, otherwise these ridiculous comments will be seen as the truth about a profession which has a majority of dedicated, well trained and motivated people in it. Some of us stay because we believe that the job we do is worthwhile and of value to society as a whole. I believe that is the case with nurses as well, god help the rest of societ,y if we all work on the assumption that you should get out of stressful jobs and be better paid.


----------



## alleycat (21 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 god help the rest of societ,y if we all work on the assumption that you should get out of stressful jobs and be better paid.  

[/ QUOTE ] 
LOL YorkG- no offence intended, but I can see you there on your own while everybody else is doing just that!

I'm afraid IMO the only reason to stick in an ill paid job when you can get out of it, is that you love it; &amp; I think more than half of that is the people you work with. Being of use to society- hmm....(True I wouldn't want to be in something I felt really unethical). But I wouldn't now stay in a stressful job, if I had any choice, unless I was paid accordingly.

Edited to say that being of use to society may be part of the reason you enjoy a job; if so, great; but staying in a job where you are undervalued &amp; unhappy out of a sense of duty is the way to a nervous breakdown IMO; I used to do this stuff and eventually realised that my employers were taking the mick, and the more I allowed myself to be used as a doormat the more I would be treated as one.....


----------



## alleycat (21 March 2008)

Suddenly realised I haven't told you what I DO....

I'm what they call a CAD Monkey!!


----------



## Stella (21 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Suddenly realised I haven't told you what I DO....

I'm what they call a CAD Monkey!! 
	
	
		
		
	


	













[/ QUOTE ] I may be being dense, but what is that?


----------



## alleycat (21 March 2008)

Disparaging term for  <font color="blue"> C </font> omputer  <font color="blue"> A </font> ided   <font color="blue"> D </font> raughting / Design technician, used by architects, engineers and the like (behind our backs... usually 
	
	
		
		
	


	




). 

A little while ago, when computer-aided anything was a bit of a Black Art, CAD people could earn very big wages (not that I ever did- except ONCE, for 6 glorious weeks, on an agency posting)- and this caused a bit of bad feeling with their professional masters, who saw (to them) unqualified people holding them to ransom. 

Monkey as in -"a monkey could do it...." even if an architect couldn't... 
	
	
		
		
	


	





Basically I draw using AutoCAD. My present firm (Civil &amp; Structural Engineers) 'bought' me off the agency and I have a permanent job at last- modest wage, but lovely, lovely people, and a job I really enjoy. 

Off now to get a banana-


----------



## YorksG (21 March 2008)

My es OH was a CAD engineer! 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 Also used the term CADmonkey


----------



## Stella (21 March 2008)

Well computors are as worthwhile as health and social work in these modern times.

I also agree with you about worthwhile jobs. Mine is very worthwhile and has a great deal of instrinsic satisfaction. Without the good extrinsic reward though, I would just as soon spend my days riding my mare and walking my dogs


----------



## JM07 (21 March 2008)

my reply ay be totally irellevent(sp)...but that programme on CH4 last night was total carcrash TV.....

methinks the family were totally in on the scam...ie getting a large ransom from the "alledged" abduction...


her so called mother wants shooting...............


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3602644.ece

This just confirms what I and many others have said since the whole thing started.


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

The Social Services in Leeds would have had no interest in this family as they live in the Kirklees LA area, if this is incorrect then how much of the rest of the article can you believe?


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

I think they come under one whole band though. I am in Essex and ours although we are under a borough council we all come under the banner of Essex County Council. I know it cant be nice for the family reading this, but can you say hand on heart that you didnt think something was amiss at the start? maybe it is because I have worked with childrens services/child protection that I noticed something or was slightly more paranoid then the rest, I dont know, I just think there is more than meets the eye


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

No I can assure you that this family would be looked after by Kirklees council, do you believe that this family is more worthy of your oprobium than the McCanns, this child was nine years old and was walking home from junior school as her mother was collecting her younger brother from the infant school a mile away.


----------



## alleycat (22 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
  I know it cant be nice for the family reading this, 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Then why write it? 
What do you think this says about you?

To me it says that under NO circumstances should you be involved in Childrens' services.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

I am not anymore, I got out as I could not stand to see children left time and time again in a situation where they should be removed and the ones that stood a chance with there family being taken away, thankfully things have changed an awful lot now and unfortunately the only time we do hear of ss now is for the bad things that get the media coverage. I personally dont look at class when looking at something like this, you can have a family that live in a high rise, living in poverty and speaking like Vikki Pollard, doesnt mean they dont have an abundance of love in there household, by the same token you can have a rich family, living in a mansion, the child gets everything they want, but not the love they need. I dont believe that class, were you are from, how many Dads your child has come into it, but I do believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. As for the Mccanns, I think the only thing they are guilty of is being naive and neglectful. Thing is with both cases, we will never all agree on what is tthe so called right and wrong way to bring up a child, one persons values and norms are not the same as the next, BUT, we do all no what is right and what is wrong, not the same as what is acceptable socially and what is not.


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

However, do you believe the rest of the article now you have been informed that they have named the wrong social services department, (I do know the correct one, I used to work for Kirklees and now work in Leeds). You do not say in what capacity you worked in child protection, it would be interesting to know.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

Personally I take what I read in the paper, any paper with a pinch of salt, you always have to read between the lines. I am not sure what I beleive to be honest, I do know though that my instincts if you like told me there is more to this one than meets the eye, from the start.
I used to work in a family centre and I also worked on the 1st contact team many years ago. I then went onto work with drug addicts and homeless people and then went into mental health for a good few years. I am now studying forensic psychology and profiling.


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

Then surely you would know that speculation in this manner is not something which would normally be seen as ethical?


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

Correct, however, this is an anon to a degree forum that people can discuss things on and as long as there is I, you or anyone else reading this/contributing to this is working on the case and does not have inside info then I do not see why it can not be discussed


----------



## polyphonic (22 March 2008)

Regardless of reports or news articles.... I like to use my own judgement- Yes having so many children by 5 different fathers doesnt make you a BAD person, but it does show irresponsibilty, lack of control and without many means to look after them a bad mother.  I should know...One of 5 who were adopted as my mother was only 22 when she had me...I will say I WAS the youngest.  She never was ever good at the baby trap malarky.   I do not understand for the sake of peace of mind ANY parent letting there child walk alone from school for a mile.  Even to me that is a huge distance.  I will say that I thought well before it was mentioned that the family, be it step or not KNEW, and I dont think that the mother wasnt aware.  I am sure the police and other genres of social told them to carry on, but to buy loads of beer and have a party either shows she wasnt all too concerned, she knew or it is just the type of mother she is.  I dont think the poor girl should be allowed back to that kind of environment- This maybe the break she might of needed to give her a chance in life


----------



## itsme123 (22 March 2008)

I agree with what you say regarding 'class', and that a family with little class and no money can give as much love as anyone yet a family with alot of class and alot of money could as easily totally deprive a child of what it needs most (love). 

What a sad situation, and what a mess for all concerned 
	
	
		
		
	


	




. 

I don't believe all I read in the papers, but am shocked to find the child is still not back with family. Something really must be amiss 
	
	
		
		
	


	




. 
At the start I thought as any other; that this was an awful thing to happen, a child gets abducted on her way home. When she was found people mocked the community for holding a disco for her, and all i thought was "well, at least they show they care, why should they show their happiness behind closed doors? just because they do things differently doesnt make it wrong or somehow distasteful". 

But now I'm inclined to think that yes, something is seriously wrong, but still blown up by the media who are playing with the fact the family come from a rough council estate and the mother has seven children by five fathers. 

Plenty of women have seven children by five, six or seven fathers (some by eight or nine as they're not sure who the father is), but they still make decent mothers... 

fact is, this is something that could happen in any area within any class or person.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

Flintus,
I think there are many now that have a baby or 10 just because the goverment give them the basics to live on. There are also many who grow up in  h-hold where alcohol is the norm and walking to and from school is too. I think the whold beer thing was irresponsible yes and also may of seemed to the outside looking in as arrogant and nonchalent, thing is to them it was probably the norm and to be fair, they were seen with beer, would everyone be up in arms if it was say Mrs Upper class doctor Mccann walking in with a few bottles of red? We are a nation nowadays that is tried and found guilty by the media before we've even got to court. All of that said I think there is more than meets the eye.


----------



## itsme123 (22 March 2008)

it does show a certain lack of control to have that many kids and fathers maybe, but as you said, doesnt make her a bad mum.  

However, allowing a child to walk that distance alone, is IMO irrisponsible. 

To have loads of beer at that party, I think, is just the sort of thing people in that kind of area do. You know the sort, any excuse for a good knees up. But the sense of community and caring you find in estates like that is often second to none.


----------



## itsme123 (22 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
Flintus,
I think there are many now that have a baby or 10 just because the goverment give them the basics to live on. There are also many who grow up in  h-hold where alcohol is the norm and walking to and from school is too. I think the whold beer thing was irresponsible yes and also may of seemed to the outside looking in as arrogant and nonchalent, thing is to them it was probably the norm and to be fair, they were seen with beer, would everyone be up in arms if it was say Mrs Upper class doctor Mccann walking in with a few bottles of red? We are a nation nowadays that is tried and found guilty by the media before we've even got to court. All of that said I think there is more than meets the eye. 

[/ QUOTE ]

well said.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (22 March 2008)

Also Charlie as you say about that area, a street party would not be out of place, that doesnt make them uncaring or a cr@p parent. 
This couple will never beat the media, just like the Mccanns, damned if you do show emotion and damned if you dont.


----------



## polyphonic (22 March 2008)

McCanns are a diff story and I dont applaud them either. 
If you think that I am media- then yes guilty. From what HAS been reported I can make a judgement- Its like saying you know from media about Marilyn Monroe- Suicide, accident or murder.
Shoot me down for this but I think If you live in an area of poverty and have little to no means raising children then you should stop at the one you can comfortably bring up.  Coming from a V deprived area to being fostered into a comfortable family made me realise alot more than feckin news reports or media potryal- I have lived it- SO no, she was selfish to bring so many children into this world with little means of support but by us the people of the UK, she was foolish to be shown carrying crates of beer into her house for a party- and she was down right stupid to let her child walk back from school with out any supervision what so ever.  Have we not learnt from other families misfotunes, hurt, upset and life shattering experiences.  This isnt about what class of people they are, this is classed as the TYPE of people they are.  She was wrong- the child suffered.  Raise a beer if you like?!


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

If you have two children at different schools a mile apart and do not drive, which one do you collect, the six year old or the nine year old who is supposed to be walking home with friends from the same street?


----------



## polyphonic (22 March 2008)

My point being collect BOTH!! One stays at school until you get there or not or how about giving the child money for the bus? If you cant afford for the child to catch the bus I dont think its fair to have anymore children.  I have lived on deprived estates and yes its irresponsible not to know who the dad is, on my actual birth certificate its my mothers 1st husband- the truth was he isnt and took me many years to track down- I know im not his, im not half indian like my 3 brothers!!  As I said this isnt about class of people but the TYPE of people, and it could of been many wealthy couples who let their child walk home, of which they do...but ;point is...it wasnt.


----------



## YorksG (22 March 2008)

There is not the option of the bus on this estate unfortunately. I can see that this is a situation which you feel very strongly about because of your own situation, unfortunately people do live in far from perfect circumstances, but it should not necessarily lead to people making assumptions about the mothers "involvement" in the disapearance of this child.


----------



## polyphonic (22 March 2008)

I think she knew something- I wont say sorry, I am not.  I will wait for me to be proved wrong and then I will doubt my judgement.  As I said, the McCanns were in the wrong- and just because they taste the same wine my mom does doesnt mean that they were irresponsible parents, they were and have hopefully will not be.  This was not about class....me dragged up, slapped about, struggle that children shouldnt know or worry about but I did.... I stick by what I said... I HOPE this could be the chance the girl needed to get out of that situation, not for finicial gain, but for where some one might look after her in a loving caring and overwhelming fashion.


----------



## polyphonic (22 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
No I can assure you that this family would be looked after by Kirklees council, do you believe that this family is more worthy of your oprobium than the McCanns, this child was nine years old and was walking home from junior school as her mother was collecting her younger brother from the infant school a mile away. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think you question wealthy families too much,  this isnt about wealth, but charachter and the McCanns and the Matthews' are in the same league


----------



## itsme123 (23 March 2008)

I can see your point, and think you are more qualified than most to speak, having been through so much yourself (and may i add, proof that not all kids who land up under social services books are bad apples) but I think the McCann's and the Matthews' situations are entirely different. 

In situation one we have a family who had wealth and education who left a three small children in a holiday apartment. They could have afforded a babysitter, they KNEW the risks. They took the risk and paid the highest price possible. 

situation two we have a family from a deprived area. Chances are the parents havent alot of money and probably not too well educated. They allowed their 9 year old child to walk a mile home in an area she knew and with friends. 


Once a week i have to catch a bus which leaves five minutes before my child's school bus (from the same stop). I pay a childminder to wait with my child(who is a year younger than Shannon) for those five minutes. 
 My child does not walk anywhere outside our front gate alone. 

The matthews family may not have been able to afford to pay someone to collect the child. 

I can see both sides of the coin, but you are right, people should not have kids they cannot afford to care for properly. 

I do not profess to be higher morally or anything, I was once a single parent on benefits myself, but is was hard and no way would i have brought a second or third child into that situation.


----------



## polyphonic (23 March 2008)

I have read your post and sat back in deep thought- Hat goes off to you!  But maybe if my mom had stopped at the 2nd child then the children wouldnt of been deprived on what should be theirs.  I was lucky enough to be no millionaires row child or wood end coventry- have a look people- lot more deprived than shannon BUT Its about parenting- judgment on the next child.  I think Shannon could now have a better shot at life, sickening thing is it could be down to the mother.  There does not seem to be a want to change her life. Its equally sad that Shannon might have to go back


----------



## alleycat (23 March 2008)

bettyboop- what really got to me about your post is that you claimed to be in some way a professional; and the first rule of professionalism in such a profession should surely be not to cause further harm to your possibly already damaged client; and by your own admission you seemed to be ignoring that rule.  But I can see from your replies that you maybe didn't mean it that way, so I'm sorry if I over-reacted.

I'm amazed, though, that people really feel its irresponsible to let a nine year old walk a mile home from school. Those who think this- do you have kids yourselves- and if so do you honestly shadow them everywhere they go? Remember that when the schools come out there are loads of kids on the street; its daylight, other adults and possibly staff are about, and a nine year old would already be aware that she shouldn't go off with anyone. The risks, under those circumstances, are actually very low.

At my daughter's primary school, (moderately posh area; I was a bit better off at that time) I can only think of one parent who deliberately brought her child to school by car; and this was because she lived down a busy lane (farm lorries, no pavements). In a less rural area (we were in a village bypassed by a major road) a child would have been even safer, as a passing car couldn't swoop through, scoop up a child &amp; make a fast getaway. I totally refute any suggestion that allowing a 9 year old to walk a mile home from school, through a residential area at 3.30 or thereabouts is irresponsible. Far from it- its normal!


----------



## polyphonic (23 March 2008)

Quote: remember that when the schools come out there are loads of kids on the street; its daylight, other adults and possibly staff are about


Yep. Dont have kids nor children BUT the above isnt really airing on the side of caution, as in, Shannon was taken when the schools come out, there are loads of kids on the street, its daylight, other adults and possibly staff are about.

Is it not irresonsible to let a nine year old walk home? I was not allowed to walk home from school until it was legal for me to stay at home on my own, Cant remember what age, 12/13 but it was not nine.   
In Nether Whitacre- 2 girls who all made the news, were spoken to by someone who wanted for them to get in the car, needless to say, their parents waited for them to get on the bus and school teachers made them get on the bus without a parent being there, LESS than a mile from my home- rural safe? safer than city culture possible- albeit not much safer, right?

It may be normal by YOUR standards, for what I grew up with, THOSE normal standards, it was IRRESONSIBLE not to.
I am happy that you are comfortable with this.

I do belive it really would be (and heaven and heart forbid) that this was your child, there might be a different choon piping from that chord, 
One question...why risk it?


----------



## alleycat (23 March 2008)

Why take the risk? Because it is normally a minimal risk! Of course, it depends where &amp; when; I wouldn't (as my neighbour did) allow my daughter to go into school at half past eight, and play in an empty playground until it filled up at about 8.45; it was a bit too early, a bit too empty. I had to leave early for work, and took my daughter to a child minder for 45 minutes or so before school- she then walked in from there, returning to the childminder after school, at first with a friend and her parent; then with a group of children. She had to go about half a mile.

I said that only one parent brought her child in by car; this was within the village, of course. Kids did come in from the outlying  farms and cottages, and they came on the school bus. Children had a right to a place on the school bus when they lived outwith walking distance; that distance, decided by the council, was set, I think, at TWO MILES- may have been two and a half. (Even with adult supervision this journey would have been dangerous; you had to cross the main road. In fact, there were enough places on the bus for everyone living over the road to get on.)

I think this suggests, though, that the local authority saw children walking considerable distances to school as normal and acceptable. Whether they were accompanied by adults or not was always left to the judgement of the adults; we tended to go with them for the first couple of years, then they would start to go in in the company of other children and there was never a problem.

Had anything happened to my daughter, I don't think I'd be blaming myself in this instance, except in the way one always wishes to put the clock back and do something different; but I do feel there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the arrangements made for her journey to and from school; and I wouldn't be so hypocritical as to blame Shannon's mother for doing what I did and what (to judge by the number of children on the streets in the morning) a large percentage of other parents do also, dependant more upon where they live in relation to the school than upon wealth or social class.
As for why take the risk; there was- and is normallynext to no risk, at these times of day. Thousands upon thousands of kids make this sort of journey safely every day. What risk there is comes generally from parents who DO take their kids to school- by car, and are in a hurry to go on to work, and don't care who they drive over to get there.

Every parent draws their boundaries between what is safe &amp; what is dangerous little bit differently, and some parents are quite happy to do things that leave me cold, whilst I probably crossed the boundaries for others; not everyone likes pets, for example, and we always had pets. Other things are accepted but undeniably risky; e.g. letting your kids ride ponies. However, if opinion is really swinging any further in the direction of safety at all costs, then I think it may be a negative step, and we will have kids who really cannot cope when they become adults because they have never had a chance to grow up.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (23 March 2008)

Alleycat, no problem, I sound like a pompous tw@t at the best of times. 
There is no ideal answer in this case, one mans meat as they say is another mans poison.
There are obviously people on here that have had experiences of all different kinds and that in itself makes them qualified enough to comment.

Flintus, I have said all along and I will stand by that now, the mother knows more than she is letting on.


----------



## alleycat (23 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 Alleycat, no problem, I sound like a pompous tw@t at the best of times.  

[/ QUOTE ] 

No no no, that's MY role


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (23 March 2008)

Thats ok then, we can be pompous 2gether, I do try not to though.


----------



## Stella (23 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
 I totally refute any suggestion that allowing a 9 year old to walk a mile home from school, through a residential area at 3.30 or thereabouts is irresponsible. Far from it- its normal! 

[/ QUOTE ] I must say that I agree, assuming that they walk with friends. I'm less happy that the mother didn't become concerned until 6.45pm because Shannon frequently didn't come straight home, but I think lots of good parents would be happy for their 9 year old to walk home from school with friends through a residential area.


----------



## xxxbettyboopxxx (23 March 2008)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
 I totally refute any suggestion that allowing a 9 year old to walk a mile home from school, through a residential area at 3.30 or thereabouts is irresponsible. Far from it- its normal! 

[/ QUOTE ] I must say that I agree, assuming that they walk with friends. I'm less happy that the mother didn't become concerned until 6.45pm because Shannon frequently didn't come straight home, but I think lots of good parents would be happy for their 9 year old to walk home from school with friends through a residential area. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is acceptable to allow a 9 year old to walk home from school with her friends through a residential area. That said it is actually no different nowaday to 50 years ago. There were paedos around then to, we just didnt have the huge media frenzy then and most of it was covered up and the victim thrown into an institutition! I used to walk 4 miles to and from school daily and that was when I was 11!


----------



## irishdraught (24 March 2008)

I was a latch key kid when I was at primary school. I used to walk home with friends  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 and that was far less than 50 years ago. I used to jump on the Metro at Gateshead - where I lived at the time with a friend and take our dogs to Whitley Bay. That would just be unheard of now.

It didn't make my parents bad people and I wasn't neglected. I have grown up to be educated and work full time. 

I think we are quick to judge and I agree, something isn't right but as bettyboop has said "there were paedos around then" but we were probably more ignorant to it.


----------

