What does the CWDC say practitioners should know about Safeguarding.

So first things first I thought I'd put the link up to the CWDC, The Common core of skills and knowledge so that everyone can read the Chapter on Safeguarding.

http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/assets/0000/9297/CWDC_CommonCore7.pdf

After reading the chapter on Safeguarding, the things that stood out to me about what practitioners should know were:
* Being able to recognise when a child isn't achieving their developmental potential.
* Noticing when the childs physical and mental health is being impaired.
*Being able to recognise when a child is displaying risky or harmful behaviour and recognising when a child is being neglected or abused.

Overall a practitioner needs to be able to make a judgement about how to safeguard a child and sometimes this can mean acting before the situation is made clear.

I think the idea that decisions being made before the situation is made clear is definately not something being done as many cases that have been made public, it is made clear that safeguarding the child was not done soon enough if done at all.

x

Cooleys 'looking glass self'

Cooley describes that one’s self perception is dependent on the thoughts of others. He suggests that one formulates an idea of one’s self based upon information gathered from the reactions of and interactions with others.
So, essentially, we as people imagine someone else’s perception of us, and subsequently we are affected by the conclusions we have imagined; this is the creation of self via a “looking-glass.”

Below is a picture to show you Cooleys 'looking glass self'

I think this theory is really interesting and I completely agree with Cooley as if you are told something about yourself enough times then you start to believe it whether it's true or not. It's amazing how much words can get into your head.
x

Human Rights

So after seeing an article in the paper today about a man being released from jail after claiming his human rights were being breached, I decided to look a bit further as I thought it could relate to what we looked at with Rachel on Monday. Last year the man in question was charged with burglary and spent 8 months in prison however it should have been longer but he was released after lawyers said he had a 'human right' to family life. Only 3 months after being released he is once again being charged, this time for assault!! Again he tried to claim his human rights but the judge was having none of it and made a point that other people have a human right to live safely. I found this interesting as with Rachel on Monday many of us assumed that a prisoner loses their human rights but this contradicts that. Anyway enough rambling on, the link is below and definatly worth a read :)

http://m.parentdish.co.uk/2012/02/23/career-criminal-dad-of-five-locked-up-despite-plea-to-judge-that-prison-breached-human-rights/

Gardners Multiple Intelligences

So after today where we talked a lot about Howard Gardner and his 7 multiple intelligences, I decided that I was going to attempt to find an explanation of Gardner and his theory that links to my learning stlye (Musical). After hitting YouTube I managed to find a great video that explains his theory through song, so heres the link. I warn you, its catchy! x

Baby P The Whole Truth- Panarama

So I've just finished watching Panaramas Baby P The Whole Truth and got a bit emotional!

I just can't believe how many opportunities there were to save Peter, why did his Grandma not let authorities know about Stephen Barker, why did police not pursue their decision to remove Peter and why did Sue Gilmour not pick up on the fact of a man living in the house in her video interview with Tracey Connelly. There are so many unanswered questions.

I also thought I'd never say this but I actually agreed with David Cameron- social services receive £100million a year and yet there are still children dying. Authorities are failing these children and unfortunately it is normally social services that receive the blame, however is it just social services or is it multi agency neglection that is the cause.

Andrew Turnell (expert in Sweden) believed that social services use of Solution Focused Therapy could have caused them to overlook Peters wellbeing. Solution Focused Therapy focuses to much on the parent and the future they wish to have, Andrew Turnell suggests that if used correctly then  Solution Focused Therapy can also take into consideration the child but unfortunately Haringey authorities did not successfully use SFT. This is a good link as it will take you to google books where there is a good explanation of SFT in Chapter 7.

One of the main things I've been appalled by the last couple of weeks is finding out that Baby P died only streets away from where Victoria Climbie died, had the authorities not learnt from previous mistakes.

This article links to the video as it is apart how Baby P was let down by authorities http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11621391.

Going to carry on looking for more for the court case now TTFN x

Baby P Sentencing

Thought this would be useful for the court case
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8055340.stm

It gives information on what sentencing was give to Tracey Connelly, Stephen Barker and Jason Owens. I also hadn't realised that aswell as being sentenced for causing Peters death, Stephen Barker was also sentenced to life for the rape of a two year old. He was also acquited for both murder and manslaughter!!
Aswell I also found out my new name for the court case  Judge Stephen Kramer.

This next link is to the transcripts of the sentencing so you'll be able to see what was said by the judge, I think this will come in handy for the court case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_05_09_sentencing_remarks_baby_p.pdf

Smacking Debate

So this week we've had to look for articles on the 'Smacking Debate' I think this is an interesting subject as peoples opinions can depend on their culture.
The article below is a new article that was written after 'that' episode of Coronation Street.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/18/coronation-street-smacking-row-should-parents-be-allowed-to-slap-their-children-115875-23705138/

It gives the opinions of two proffesionals, one is for smacking, the other against. I think I would definately agree with Phillip Noyes of the NSPCC, surely there is other ways of disciplining a child, I know from personal experience that if I got smacked it wouldn't stop me from doing what I did wrong again, I would just run away faster! I always found that hearing the dreaded words "I'm dissapointed in you" was a lot worse than a smack.
However some cultures agree with smacking and think it plays a vital part in disciplining children, we watched a video in Fionas lesson about smacking called 'Smack and I'm Proud' and I'm sure you'll all remember the lady with the fish slice, well she thought it was okay as it was in her culture.
The link below will take you to a forum about the programme so you can see what others thought of it.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10917898

Then this link is an article about the TV show
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-406087/Proud-smack-children.html which points out some of the key things that were said on the show and the opinions of the parents that smack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/parenting-discipline-smacking-is-it-really-so-bad-416324.html This article is written by a lady that believes in smacking but also believes that it has become socially unexceptable in middle class society and therefore many people will deny smacking their children. I found this article interesting as many peoples opinions are taken into consideration. A child psychologist and childrens rights campaigner both say it is wrong, on the other side a friend of the journalist, the journalist herself and Tana Ramsey (Gordans wife) say it is okay to smack.


So what do you think??