This isn’t a comment on this specific case, but Mark Kerr’s wider comments are right, aren’t they? It’s difficult territory, but, among many issues, if care staff become too reluctant to intervene physically, the likelihood is an increase in use of the police.

I don’t doubt there is pain, but I think if someone has a genuine experience of inexplicable or unnecessary child removal, they are likely to want to focus on explaining those circumstances, rather than tell shoppers gangs of SWs are roaming the streets snatching children.

That’s so gross!

I’m a marmite and cheese man myself…

Oh, has to be white bread, that’s a hill I will die on…

Oh no, like Filet-O-Fish? I’m really don’t think cheese and fish is a good combination…

Hmmm…

Dez, this is all over the place - no meal where ketchup or baked beans are legitimate ingredients should also include salad! Personally I think all ingredients should be contained within a sandwich, nothing on the side…

That’s only for chips…

Interesting, I tried both at the same time…

Nor have I, but if you’re going to watch one, I’d recommend it.

Curb…

Yeah, the notion that the large PE backed firms will some how see the light is laughable.

I’m interested to know if the reduction of children in care was achieved primarily through fewer children coming into care, or through successful reunifications?

You must have increased the support budgets prior to reducing the budget for children in care. Unless you deprived children in care? Initially there has to be an overall increase in spending, otherwise what you are suggesting is mathematically impossible.

It’s not possible to just move money from paying for children in care to early help, both should be funded appropriately. In time, if early intervention and, imv, universal services are funded properly, there should be savings from reduced numbers in care.