Let's not. If there is empirical evidence that one group or other is more of a problem than the general population then i say hound and harass them to the ends of the earth. Zero tolerance in so far as there are resources to do so Prevention is better and cheaper in the long run that cure so perhaps the availability of resources should be addressed. Surely it is not beyond us to create a reporting system that means the lack of co operation from any one agency cannot be hidden. It is also not reasonable to say that we all make mistakes or have a bad day, the case in most peoples minds extended for 13 years ! with literally thousands of incidents. I am sure that there are very many well meaning and hard working dedicated people close to these cases that are terribly hurt by being tarred with the same brush. Equally there are some that do indeed need to be taught a harsh lesson. Bear in mind that most of the same public employees have a generous pension paid for by you and me.
When someone is charged with doing an immensely complex, difficult job which involves steering a fine course between opposite types of harms, and doing it with shrinking resources - yes, threatening them with prison if they get it wrong is really going to help. How about threatening surgeons with prison if their scalpel ever slips? Threatening barristers with prison if their legal advice turns out to have been wrong? Prison should be reserved as a punishment for people who have committed crimes, not just people who haven't managed to do their job very well.
Due to ongoing information collecting My experience of social workers is not a good one where children have been concerned It's been disgraceful to say the least
Without wishing to support the policy that has been announced, I do take issue with the comparison with a doctor or barrister who makes an honest mistake. It sounds as if there are some public servants who already subject to legal requirements in this sort of area, and according to the BBC: "The new measures, being unveiled by the prime minister, would see the crime of "wilful neglect" extended to cover children's social care and education." A surgeon who makes a slip is probably not guilty of "wilful neglect".... unless of course he is drunk. The description of the problems with child abuse in the cases which are currently being discussed does not seem to me to be limited to a few people making understandable mistakes.
On the other hand Junk Food Kids: Who's To Blame? - Episode Guide - Channel 4 Watching these poor kids having teeth taken out from poor eating can parents be blamed for abuse
Take the kids, stick em in a home or foster care. Thats the answer. Thats always the answer. For some...
I assume this policy announcement was prompted ostensibly by the Rotherham scandal. If it can be proved that social workers, police officers or anyone else in a position of authority who were made aware of abuse but chose not to act on it out of multi-culti squeamishness or any other reason, are those people not guilty of collusion as the law stands now? And if so why is current law not enforced?
There exist various secondary offences, on the lines of inciting, procuring, conspiring, aiding, abetting, etc some substantive offence, or attempted offence, or being an accessory. But these secondary types of offence are not all that easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt. They generally require the defendant to be proved to have intended the harm (mens rea) - carelessness or inadvertence is not enough. I agree with you that the law against cases of incitement to violence are not enforced properly, and ought to be. Omitting to do something which ought better to have been done is not in the same category.
think of the legal aid that can be squirmed out of this...........its all about the money money......
Interesting when you compare this to the situation where perhaps you have not seen a speed limit sign and have subsequently been caught speeding. Where's the mens rea there?
I'm not writing a textbook about the different types of offences and how to prove them. That's near enough for practical purposes.
All I'm saying is that you can be wilfully incompetent at work, and an at-risk child dies because you missed something, and then you accidentally drive home at 30mph through a 20mph limit because you didn't see the sign ... Guess where the full weight of the law comes in? Just sayin'.
