Children’s social care costs £3 billion a year more than thought, a government-appointed review has revealed, as experts warn the sector “cannot afford to morally or financially” continue.
They don’t actually know what they’re doing. We’d better have them doing less then, eh?
“recruits top graduates into social work”: says them.
Well, I don’t know either. What the hell is social care for children?
Orphanages?
Children’s “care” homes mayhap? They appear to have a lot of (largely ineffective) staff and cost a lot to run and maintain. How about they recoup some of their costs by instead of pimping the kids out to their friends gratis, they institute a proper charging structure?
“What the hell is social care for children?” I used to call it the Council Buggery Service.
dearieme:
“recruits top graduates into social work”
I don’t know about top graduates, but I went into social work (residential childcare) when I left Uni with a first (when that actually meant something) and an MA.
I stuck it for a couple of years. It’s shit. It’s Local Government. The job was a real eye-opener, though. I had little idea that people could be so horrible to their kids in so many ways. And that the abused and neglected kids could be so floridly evil. I ended up working in secure residential accommodation. I wouldn’t mind paying a few quid extra each year to keep those out of general circulation.
@Sam Vara: and right on cue, several male ‘children’ (though if the progressives had their way even the 15 year old would be considered under the age of criminal responsibility) from Toxteth are being questioned in the death of a 12 year old girl.
What’s the betting they turn out to be ‘graduates’ of council care?
The only thing worse for a child than being taken into ‘care’ is leaving it with abusive or incapable parent(s). If only they hadn’t made adoption of British children effectively impossible for white heterosexuals.
Adoption is harder than it used to be for one good reason: the kids are worse these days.
Time was, adoptees were either orphans or the children of unwed mothers. The sexual revolution eliminated shame & stigma, and single motherhood became widespread. Now the only kids who get put up for adoption have foetal drug/alcohol syndrome and/or serious behavioural problems.
Even the main adoption charity, Adoption UK, admits as much:
https://www.adoptionuk.org/blog/families-falling-apart-the-devastating-consequences-of-a-lack-of-support
You can insert your own beliefs about nature vs nurture, but the above should give anybody pause for thought before adopting. Leaving troublesome kids in residential care might be better for them than trying to pawn them off on unsuspecting & unprepared adoptive parents.
@Sam Vara… Are you, by any chance, “Winston Smith” the author of the Orwell Award-winning “Generation ‘F'”…?
Baron:
Alas, no. But thanks for adding something to my reading pile!
Used to be called Homes for Waifs and Strays, having spent a number of years in one I’m still not sure if I count as a waif or a stray
The change in adoption circumstances is very true, I’m adopted and I would hesitate to adopt a child. The other factor other than the sexual revolution is changes in abortion law means less single mothers who made a mistake and had no option other than to go away have the child and give them up for adoption before returning home and everyone pretending it never happened
Doubt it’s the the case now but until a child was adopted a single woman who was working was still expected to contribute towards its upkeep from their wages