counter response to the Tom Pride article about ‘How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.”
This is a counter response to the Tom Pride article here about ‘How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.” it has been widely shared online and needs countering as does not fully reflect the facts.
This is based on the actual facts as known and reported publicly not a selective selection. I am a Councillor in Tower Hamlets. Part of the difficulty with this story is the paramount need to protect the child from further harm so it is possible we may never know exactly what happened as we cannot reveal all details.
But I am concerned that Tom’s article is part of an attempt to de-legitimise the press and to paint this story as purely Islamophobia. It is not, it is a serious issue and needs to be properly reported as the paramount aim of children’s services is to protect the child.
It appears as if Tom Pride did not read the original reports published by Andrew Norfolk in The Times newspaper (they are behind a paywall) which renders his analysis incomplete. Other newspapers simply read The Times reports and copied them. The issue Tom should be raising is why if any discrepancies exist between the original report and the copies.
Andrew Norfolk, Chief Investigative Reporter of The Times is an award winning journalist who helped to uncover the Rotherham sex abuse scandal where for years local authorities, the Police and other bodies ignored what was happening in part it is believed on the grounds of political correctness. He was right to uncover that scandal and I believe based on what is known so far to publish this story as well. It is in the public interest.
The reports mention that he had access to internal Tower Hamlets Council reports provided to him by an employee of the Council. They appear to include contact centre reports written by an employee of the Council who was supervising meetings between the child and her birth mother in a secure contact centre. The supervisor would be able to hear the conversation as part of their role is to ensure that the mother for example cannot coach the child nor find information she is not entitled to like the location of the foster family.
Therefore much of the information published was originally written by employees of the Council and is therefore known to them.
I have only compared his ten alleged falsehoods to the original The Times reports, the BBC R4 Today programme on Saturday 2nd September and the court documents, all except the BBC programme were available when Tom wrote his piece. In red are the points Tom made, below each one is my response, in Italics are excerpts from other reports.
1) According to court documents, it was the police not the local authority (as stated by the tabloids) who decided the child should be put into foster care:
Irrelevant to the story about the choice of foster parents. The Times just says that the foster placement decisions were made by Tower Hamlets Council which is correct. They made no comment about who made the original decision that the child should be placed in foster care.
The foster placements were made, against the wishes of the girl’s family, by the scandal-ridden borough of Tower Hamlets.
2) According to court documents, the foster family criticised by the tabloids was a temporary placement.
The Times made no specific comments on the length of fostering except to say that it had started this year. Foster placements by their very nature are temporary (even if they may extend for years) which is why we have adoption as a permanent solution.
To protect the child, The Times has chosen not to identify her or the unusual circumstances that led to her being taken into care earlier this year.
3) According to court documents, the child herself is from Muslim heritage and her Muslim grandmother has now been cleared by the courts to look after her. This fact is only disputed by the girl’s mother but none of this was mentioned by the tabloids as it would obviously totally destroy their narrative:
Islam is a religion not a heritage.
The court document says
Documents including the assessment of the maternal grandparents state that they are of a Muslim background but are non practising. The child’s mother says they are of Christian heritage.
The child is described in the reports as white Christian English speaking five year old girl who wears a cross and has long blond hair (as per the photo from The Times). One set of grandparents may have a Muslim background but were not practising so technically are not Muslim. In our society it is not uncommon for mixed families to be very different from each other. A good example is Boris Johnson, white, British Christian but with a Turkish grandparent.
As a reminder this is what the regulations say about foster placements (the United Nations - Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 has similar wording)
(b) before making any decision affecting a child placed or to be placed with a foster parent
due consideration is given to the child’s--
(i) wishes and feelings (having regard to the child’s age and understanding), and
(ii) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
Her religious persuasion was Christian. The law says nothing about matching based on family history and only one set of grandparents are of Muslim background.
The foster parents did not appear to match based on religion, race, possibly home culture (eating on the floor) and possibly linguistics in the home environment. That is not to say that the foster parents were not good or loving foster parents but the law is clear on placements.
4) The temporary foster mother did not wear a veil as stated by the tabloids. She wears a hijab:
The veil in the photographs published by the Mail and other comics was photoshopped onto a stock picture of a Muslim family taking a walk in a park in Dubai:
The Daily Mail did say that the photo was posed by models, they later used the same picture as in The Times which was real.
The Times actually said this
Her first carer, with whom the girl lived for four months, is believed to have worn a niqab outside the family home. The carer at her present foster placement wears a burka, fully concealing her face, when she accompanies the child in public.
A burka and a niqab are different from a hijab, I do not know where Tom got the Hijab comment from.
But The Times have pictures of at least one foster carer so would have been able to visually confirm what the carer was wearing (the pictures published are from the back and pixelated)
5) According to court documents, the child’s mother has not at any time requested the foster parents be changed:
True but the court documents also say this
8. The mother raised some concerns about the appropriateness of the placement. On 27th June 2017, the court directed the Local Authority to produce a statement to address the cultural appropriateness of the foster care placement.
11.The mother has today confirmed further concerns in respect of the foster carers.
12.The mother applied for the child to be placed in the care of the maternal grandmother at the hearing on 27th June 2017.
So the mother was trying to replace the foster parents with the child’s grandmother, the best possible carer under the circumstances
6) Tower Hamlets council have confirmed that the temporary foster parents do speak English. According to court documents, the Family Court dealing with the case has also expressed no concerns about the foster parents’ level of English. The press simply lied about that:
This is what the The Times said
In confidential local authority reports seen by The Times, a social services supervisor describes the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster carer’s home because “they don’t speak English”.
A social services supervisor for Tower Hamlets in east London described the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to the foster family because “she doesn’t understand the Arabic”. The girl is also understood to have said that she was regularly expected to eat meals on the floor.
I believe that what a child says in the presence of a social services supervisor should be listened to and investigated (the mother would have had no opportunity to coach the child). The question is not that the foster parents could not speak English the question is what was the routine language used at home.
The Court says nothing about the language or otherwise of the foster parent(s)
7) According to council foster care officials, the temporary foster parents did not ban Easter as stated by the tabloids. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied about that.
This is what The Times report said
More recently, the girl is said to have told her mother that “Christmas and Easter are stupid” and that “European women are stupid and alcoholic”.
I do not know where Tom got the comment that the parents had banned Easter
8) There is no evidence, apart from claims by the tabloid press, that the temporary foster parents have banned crucifixes and bacon from the home. There is also no mention of this according to court documents by either the mother herself or the lawyers representing her. The press simply lied.
This is what the The Times said
The reports state that the supervisor heard the girl, who at times was “very distressed”, claiming that the foster carer removed her necklace, which had a Christian cross, and also suggested that she should learn Arabic.
A council employee heard the child say that the first foster parent, to whose care she was due to have been returned this week, had taken away her necklace, which had a cross.
It is understood that the child told her mother that when she was given her favourite Italian food to take home, the foster carer would not allow her to eat it because the carbonara meal contained bacon.
9) According to court documents, it seems the child was put into temporary foster care by the police because of the mother’s alcohol and drugs problems. There was no mention of this fact by the tabloid press, presumably as it would put a question mark over the mother’s credibility and her criticism of the temporary foster parents.
Irrelevant to the question, was the child placed with the appropriate foster parent as required by the law or not?
As a reminder The Times said this
To protect the child, The Times has chosen not to identify her or the unusual circumstances that led to her being taken into care earlier this year.
10) The foster parents have been rated very highly by independent assessors, including the child’s own independent Children’s Guardian whose job is to advocate solely for the welfare of the child:
There is no mention of the word ‘rated’ or ‘highly’ in the Court report not sure where Tom got that. This is what the Court said
The child’s Guardian has undertaken enquiries and visited the child in the current foster carer’s home and spoken to the child alone. The Guardian has no concerns as to the child’s welfare and she reports that the child is settled and well cared for by the foster carer
It is not clear which foster family the Guardian visited as there were two families at different times. The Times makes clear that one family was more of a concern.
Tom also makes no mention of the relevant fact that in April 2017 OFSTED failed Tower Hamlets Children’s Services with these comments (the childs fostering started in March)
“There are widespread and serious failures in the services provided to children who need help and protection in Tower Hamlets. As a result, too many children remain in situations of actual or potential harm for too long. Insufficient scrutiny by the chief executive, the director of children’s services (DCS) and politicians has meant that they did not know about the extent of the failures to protect children until this inspection.”
The full report can be accessed here worth reading the first two pages.
I will be trying to confirm the accuracy of the original Times reports but we owe that little girl and other children not yet fostered the benefit of an investigation to ensure that all children in the future are fostered by the best possible foster carers who will minimise the inevitable trauma of fostering.
You may have seen the news about the fostering of a five year old girl arranged by Tower Hamlets children's services
I have asked the Council to confirm whether these reports are correct or not. Newspapers often sensationalise story's but unfortunately neither do I trust the judgement of Councils childrens service since they failed their OFSTED inspection.
I have no issue with Muslims fostering Christian (in fact I have experience of this in my own wider family) although as an atheist I believe no child should have religion imposed on them especially a foster child.
It is clear that much of the information comes from contact centre reports. This is where the child is allowed to meet its birth parents in a strictly controlled and supervised centre. A social worker is present in the meetings to supervise and will write up afterwards what happened. These reports are then shared with children's services and the parents normally. It is clear the parents have shared them with Andrew Norfolk, the Times reporter. They are written by a social worker and not the parents so should be an accurate record of meetings.
To summarise what the newspaper reports say
- Arabic routinely spoken at home of first carer which child did not understand
- a necklace containing a cross was removed by the carer and not returned
- child regularly expected to eat meals on the floor (in some societies this is normal)
- Child encouraged to learn Arabic, child told mother that she needs to ask her social worker if she can learn Arabic
- "The social services employee heard the child whispering Arabic words to her mother that she was allegedly told must be said aloud to ensure that “when you die you go to heaven”.
- Both foster families, the women concealed their faces when outside
- Not allowed to eat pork (her birth mother had cooked her Carbonara with pork to take home)
- Child allegedly told 'Christmas and Easter are stupid'
- Child allegedly told 'Euopean women are stupid and alcoholic'
- Girl was always distressed at the end of each meeting
The parents are objecting to the fostering arrangement so will understandably be doing everything they can to both ensure the safety of their child but also bring the process into disrepute.
This is what the OFSTED report said about fostering in Tower Hamlets.
"Choice and availability of placements are limited, particularly in meeting older children’s needs. However, most children live within 20 miles of home in stable placements that meet their cultural, ethnic and religious needs. The fostering service is actively recruiting new carers, and it supports carers well.” page 17 of the report
The key word here is ‘most children’ not all children and this maybe the case with this child. In January 2017 we had 243 children living with foster families, of whom 81% live outside of Tower Hamlets (also from OFSTED)
I will be providing the following quote to the newspapers
"The fostering process is about ensuring the least disruption and trauma in what must be an incredibly difficult time for a child as they move between different ‘parents', homes and surroundings. It is also essential that a child can continue to develop and learn. I know many Muslim families who would make great foster parents for any child. However this case does raise some troubling questions about the suitability of at least some of our foster parents and the judgement of Tower Hamlets Childrens Services who recently received a "Requires improvement" grade for their ability to look after children in care.
The report does not suggest it was an appropriate environment for any young child regardless of faith if the home language was not English, that the culture was so alien to their previous experience and personal possessions were removed and not returned for religious reasons. Foster families also have a duty not to impose their own beliefs on a child unless they are the universal principles of good parenting. We have asked the Council for more information on this case, the accuracy of the reports and what lessons can be learnt"
But please consider fostering if you are in a position to do so, this report shows that children need you. Their details are here;
Recruitment and Assessment Team
5 Clove Crescent
Tel: 0800 279 9850
Next month I had planned to start a major piece of work on childrens social services so if you have any insider knowledge please get in contact by PM (confidentially of course)
Last night there was a vote for me to Chair the Grants Scrutiny Sub-Committee of the Council, it also means I am the Lead for Resources Scrutiny i.e. looking at budgets etc.
It was a competitive election against a candidate from the independent group of Cllrs but I won the vote on a 5 to 2 basis with support from Labour and PATH Councillors.
I stood because;
1. This role should not be held by a member of the same party that runs the Council i.e. Labour. One of the reasons why Lutfur Rahman was removed was mis-use of the grants process to reward his support base. The risk of a Labour person doing this role is that grants become to be seen as a political tool again
2. Also not a role that should be held by a former Tower Hamlets First Councillor as they benefitted from previous mis-use of grants
3. My ward, Canary Wharf gets the least amount of grants of any ward in TH so therefore I will have less personal interest in grant decisions then nearly every other Councillor in TH
4. I do want to do a big piece of work on the Council Budget this year and really involve local people in that work and the Resource Scrutiny role will help me with that.
The role does come with a Special Responsibility Allowance of £8,000 a year. The logic being it is more work then just being a normal Councillor as I need to do more work preparing for meetings and writing reports etc.
Previously by the time you added up all of the costs I incur from the Council work I do i.e. printing, website, mobile phone, campaigning, travelling, magazine subscriptions plus spend on the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Forum I did not earn much if any money from being a Cllr (especially as Allowances are taxed). That will change with this additional money so I will be financially benefiting from this additional work although it will also be taxed.
This is what the Sub-Committee does
"This Sub-Committee was established to support an objective, fair, transparent and co-ordinated approach to grant funding across the Council including but not restricted to the following.
(a) overseeing the process and arrangements for awarding and administering grants and related procurement processes to ensure a strategic approach;
(b) overseeing the processing arrangements for developing grants criteria and assessment methodology
(c) overseeing the monitoring, performance management and evaluation arrangements in relation to funded projects; and
(d) ensuring fairness and transparency in the grant awarding process.
The Grants Sub-Committee will be mindful of the Council’s objective to create an environment for a thriving Third Sector."
If you want to get an email version of my regular newsletter you can sign up in the top left hand corner of the link below
Article I wrote for Conservative Home website on candidate selection issues at the General Election which they have chosen not to run.
The party that wins the next election will be the one that most quickly learns the lessons of the 8th June. Given the possibility of an election in the next year we need to start learning those lessons now. The one advantage we have is that we feel we lost the election despite winning it and should be more open to making fundamental changes. Labour will feel that they won the campaign and will stick to what they did before but with a better idea of our weaknesses.
So, let’s start with candidates. We went into this election with not enough candidates for all 650 seats so we wasted time at the beginning of the campaign finding, selecting and allocating candidates to seats. I am aware of at least one non-target seat only getting a candidate three days before the deadline, I am sure there are others. PAB’s were conducted by Skype at the last minute. But we know that the Liberal Democrats had candidates selected in advance. Candidates then had to spend time learning about their new seats, where the boundaries were, who the key contacts are etc. All wasted time which meant they started the campaign behind.
We need to have candidates ready for every seat, working as soon as possible. For seats held by Conservative MP’s we should have a pool of reserve candidates identified should anything happen to that MP.
We then expected candidates who have made enormous sacrifices in time and money to not even work in their new seats but to campaign elsewhere. They were cannon fodder used to supplement a party which does not have enough campaigning members in target seats. That is a very expensive strategy and I fear it will be harder to motivate them next time. And please can we treat them as adults, some of the stories I have heard of micro-management are deeply concerning but local candidates will know better than CCHQ local conditions and issues.
I know of a candidate currently a Councillor elsewhere. She hoped to be the candidate in her constituency (it was not a target seat) which would have helped her get re-elected next May. But instead she was sent to another non-target seat which she did not know but was then told to spend all her time in a 3rd (target) seat. We need to find a better way of finding and allocating help.
But some of those target seats saw huge increases in Labour majorities but we were told to go there through poor intelligence, over confidence and hubris. The risk now is that CCHQ instructions are so mis-trusted that they are increasingly ignored or cut out of communications, something that has already happened. But that leaves us in the worst possible situation, a fragmented campaign with no central awareness of what is happening.
We also need to be more careful about candidate selection, we naturally focussed on finding candidates who can win elections or who fit a desired profile but we also need candidates who can keep marginal seats safe in 5 and 10 year’s time through their local reputation. I know some who did not have that ability which also harmed us.
Which raises a critical issue, we need local candidates wherever possible who can keep working in target seats between now and the next election, again something the Lib Dems did. In non-target seats the main criteria for candidate selection should be local issues, many of us have local elections in May 2018 and might have wanted to use 2017 GE campaign literature to highlight local election candidates or issues.
But then as non-target seat CCHQ expected us to do no local campaigning. But that is not sustainable. Not every member had the time nor inclination to travel to the nearest target seat. And we could not afford to give our opponents a free reign but even so we received complaints that people had not seen our leaflets but had seen our opponents and we have a Council election next year.
But in target seats given how close the winning / losing margin was, local candidates personal links, name awareness and connections may be enough to tip the balance in any future election. In really safe seats we can take a greater risk and select outstanding candidates from elsewhere who are most likely to add strength to the Parliamentary Party. Local candidates will also know the lay of the land, where to find support, even the best leaflet delivery routes. These are all advantages that a new candidate from outside has to spend time learning.
That does not mean keeping every candidate we selected for the 8th June, we do have a little time to review and re-allocate candidates. But by the autumn we should have candidates selected who have started work whether the election is in 2017, 2018 or 2022.
We are a Party that does not like theory very much but can I suggest that we look at Colonel John Boyd’s OODA loop theory. observe, orient, decide, and act. You can defeat an opponent basically by thinking and acting faster than they do, getting inside their decision cycle and we need to start now if we are to win next time.
In addition to my work locally I am also very interested and concerned about defence issues and wrote this article below for Conservative Home but they wont have time to publish until after the General Election. So here is it is.
‘We want eight and we won’t wait’ that was the cry in Parliament in 1909 by a Conservative MP for how many Dreadnought type battleships we should build in response to the perceived German threat. Thanks to public support we built eight battleships that year and went into WW1 with a clear superiority over the Imperial German Navy.
In the recent Conservative Home survey of party member’s, the question “Uphold the NATO commitment to spend at least two per cent of GDP on defence” received the highest support of any policy commitment demonstrating that Conservatives believe in prioritising defence spending.
While the Prime Minister recently made the welcome announcement that defence spending will increase faster than inflation by 0.5% a year, what does that mean in terms of combat effectiveness and is it enough when the latest Treasury Public Spending Statistics report shows a decline in Departmental Expenditure Limits (long term planned expenditure) defence spending from £37,196 million in 2011/12 to £34,424 million in 2015/16 and a decline from 2.4% of GDP to 1.9% over the same period.
But is it right that we now measure our military effectiveness and preparedness through purely financial criteria. Is spending 2% of our GDP on defence or the relative international size of our budget the measure we should be using? And last year the Defence Committee concluded that we had met our 2% commitment “through what appears to be creative (albeit permissible) accounting.” And the recent letter to the Sun newspaper by a wide range of retired military leaders said “Government boasts of spending two per cent of GDP on defence are widely criticised as an accounting deception. Most analysts agree core defence expenditure for hard military power is well below two per cent.”
But what % of GDP we spend tells us nothing about our defence preparedness now or in the future. The real questions should be, are we fully funding the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), do we need to update the SDSR given global changes and how do we ensure that the military units described in the SDSR are deployable and effective.
The SDSR says we should have nineteen destroyers and frigates. Will six Type 45 destroyers, eight Type 26 global combat ships and five Type 31 general purpose frigates be enough? Given that in the Falklands war we lost four destroyers and frigates and had another five badly damaged (we would have lost more had the Argentineans possessed more Exocet missiles and better fused bombs) are fourteen top line warships and five lower capability frigates adequate?
I wrote previously here that those ships won’t have the ability to sink large ships at a safe distance between 2018 and possibly as late as 2030 due to the retirement next year of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. We have announced that the Type 26’s will carry the Mk41 vertical missile launcher which can launch a wide range of offensive weapons including anti-ship, anti-submarine and land strike missiles but even though construction starts this summer we have not yet said what type of weapons will be acquired let alone when. The American, Japanese and Korean Navies all launch a wide range of missile types from their Mk41 launchers. And it has just been announced that we will re-manufacture thirty-eight WAH-64D Apache attack helicopters, last year we said we would manufacture fifty new E versions, we have sixty-six D in the inventory today.
What is also missing is any objective analysis of what the right level of capability should be given the global situation. What core capabilities do we wish to have? Given that it can take decades to design and build new weapons what capability do we want out to the 2040’s? If we do not invest enough in our military the costs of failure are very high, either we lose the ability to deter conflict or if conflict is forced on us we lose. And failure will almost certainly be measured in British dead and injured.
We also need to move away from purely financial measures of defence capability. So, a modern replacement for the “We want eight and we won’t wait” cry could be “We want two fully equipped globally deployable carrier strike groups, more than twenty top line combatants capable of destroying enemy ships, aircraft and submarines at safe distances, two squadrons of search aircraft, silent attack submarines, the ability to land Royal Marines anywhere in the world and the ability to hunt and destroy any mines that threaten our shipping lanes and we won’t wait”
I know that is a mouthful but if we are to be serious about defence that is the kind of detail we need to be discussing rather than stating what % of our GDP we are spending as if that is enough to deter aggression.
I used the new Met Police website to report a driver driving on the pavement to avoid a road block and got a picture of the vehicle which I submitted to the police together with a detailed report online here;
The driver told me he did not care that he had driven on the pavement when I challenged him, I hope he cares now.