Remand Home Charges
The L.C.C. has now replied to the charge which Mr. John Watson, chairman of Tower Bridge Juvenile Court, brought against its Educa- tion Committee in regard to the treatment of a girl of seven at Marlesford Lodge Remand Home. The complaint is that this child, whose parents were charged with neglect, was sent to be cared for at a Home where all but one of the girls were between x4 and 17 years of age, a large proportion of them having been prostitutes or thieves ; that she attended lessons with them, used the same corridors and lavatories, and had no outdoor exercise. In a statement to the L.C.C. on Tuesday the chairman of the Education Committee directly contradicted many of these allegations, pointing out that the younger children did not eat, sleep or play with the older ones, or use the same lavatories, and that the child had no exercise because she was ill in bed. Charges which had also been brought in regard to premises and the quality of the staff were contested, though the war-time difficulty of getting labour and materials was admitted. What is not denied is that the child was sent to a home whose inmates were older children, mostly offenders—a mixing of the ages which ought to be avoided—but it was by the .order of the court that the child was sent back to Marlesford Lodge. On the mai points there are two sets of public statements which directly con tradict each other. Which is true, or what is the degree of truth i either? A serious question has been brought into the open, an the facts must be established. A Home Office enquiry is plaint needed.
Previous page
