THE SPECTATOR
THE DOCTRINES OF CRUELTY
People rightly object to powers being granted to social workers. There is no Obvious reason why social workers should be allowed to supplant parents and families and to decide the fate of children. Such freedom helps to destroy families and intrudes the power of public authorities into People's most intimate and private rela- tions. It may therefore seem inconsistent that those usually so hostile to social workers should be the same people who now criticise them for their neglect of Children in the Jasmine Beckford, Tyra Henry and other cases of child cruelty. It would not, after all, be right for the Government to pass a new series of laws extending the power of social workers to take control of families of whom they disapproved. But what is so extraordinary about the current cases (especially the 8eckford case) is that social workers were using the very considerable powers which the law already allows them, and yet they failed to notice the appalling crimes which Were being committed. Both Tyra Henry and. Jasmine Beckford were the 'benefi- ciaries of care orders. The social services were responsible for their welfare, and yet both children died. Faced with these facts, the social workers concerned have reacted unattractively. Supporters of Miss Gunn Wahlstrom, the Brent social worker in the !3eckford case, have complained incessant- 1Y of 'press harassment' as if there was no legitimate public interest in such a matter. In Lambeth, social workers have com- plained that they have been impeded from doing their job by the intolerant and doctrinaire attitudes of Councillor Janet Boateng, the chairman of the Social Ser- vices Committee. It is easy to believe that they are telling the truth, but it is hard to see how Mrs Boateng's unsympathetic attitudes could have kept them from regu- lar visits to Tyra Henry and checks on her father (and killer) Andrew Neil who, they were in a position to know, had already blinded his son. Their complaints against Mrs Boateng seem largely designed to prevent them from losing their jobs. One therefore has a right to ask: if social workers will not accept responsibility, how can it be right for them to be given any powers? If children can die 'in care' with- out blame being attached, what is the point of 'care' at all? As well as this evasion of responsibility, the Henry and Beckford cases have revealed even worse attitudes among some of those charged with the welfare of the poor, ignorant and defence- less. It seems that the obsession with the 'racism' of society has led some social workers and local authorities to go to almost any length to keep black and white separate, pretending that black homes ore always happy merely because they are black, and refusing the help of loving potential foster parents solely because they are white. Such a policy is obviously cranky; but recent events have shown it to be far worse — it is vilely cruel, elevating an untrue dogma over any concern for the welfare or even the life of children. By the strange logic which the extremist mind follows, 'anti-racist' thinking has now come to embrace, in reverse, all those doctrines about blood and sex which have made apartheid so ridiculous and repulsive throughout the world. The people who hold these doctrines and act in their name are determined to divide British society. Their interest is not in the advancement of coloured people, but in their hostile separation from the rest of the population. Much is written about the suffering of the poor in 'Thatcher's Britain', and those sufferings are blamed on 'uncaring mone- tarism' and the like, but the most marked distinction between the poor and the rest today is that the poor are at the mercy of state and local government power. The poor are housed and educated and their health attended to by agencies over which they have no control whatsoever. In many case, their families and even their attitudes are regulated by officials. These officials have created a client class. The campaign against 'racism' is a powerful instrument for perpetuating their rule. Recent events suggest that it is being used more ruthlessly and heartlessly than ever. Why does the Government not say so?
Previous page
