Home for children with emotional difficulties back on the table (From The Northern Echo)

You would just give up. These kids are not going to blend in and have any normality.

Hunwick is out of the way for this kind of establishment, a poor location and a bad idea. I honestly cannot see it getting approved by Ofsted simply because the of the opposition from the local residents. Suggest they try a town location such as Bishop Auckland

Having worked with young people who are victims of abuse. I think its highly refreshing that what these young people actually need is being acknowledged. Security, understanding and a chance of normality. Who has the right to say otherwise?

Lucy, I agree completely but with the residents of the village being completely against the project there is absolutely no chance.

The fact that Eyes UK have already had such opposition in the last planning application, then apply again is a two fingers to Hunwick, we will do it anyway.

I read through the supporting evidence to the planning application. They are not making guarentees that residents will not get hassle.

People move to villages for a slower pace of life, a bit peace and quiet. You can see why there is so much outrage.

Lucy you will probably also agree that abused children can also present behavior issues and lash out as a result of thier experiences. Exactly what the residents are against.

I have to disagree.

Firstly the fact that its being resubmitted could very well be due to the location being the most suitable, to offer tranquility to an otherwise chaotic life.

I find it amazing that an entire village can be opposed to four young people, none of whom are likely to be known to eachother as have little or no one else. So bearing that in mind we are discussing individuals.

It would be a lovely world if we all had the same opportunity and chances, unfortunately this is not the case and I very much believe social responsibility is a must, sadly this appears to be lacking.

Furthermore I am a child who suffered that abuse, without the positive people who gave me the chances to succeed, I would not have the life I have now. Your generalisation astounds me, maybe people should look past the stereotype.

Lucy, you working for Eyes UK?

Not at all, I am a Social Worker who cares!

If you care Lucy and understand the situation then you would agree that it is now the wrong location.

You will never win over the people of Hunwick and as you say, the whole village is against the development, so why press ahead to make so many enermies?

Well then 160 people should hang their heads in shame!

Convenience...or an inconvenience to narrow minded people, everyone is happy to say they care until it gets close to home.

We wonder why the class divide continues?

Absolutely disgusting. We are still talking about 4 young people? It actually leaves me speechless.

Lucy, calling the people of Hunwick names, especially if your a Social Worker is hardly going to support the development, you probably looking to place children.

People are worried about the kids causing troble, now their social worker is calling the people of Hunwick! Now that leaves me speachless!!

Pointing out narrow minded attitudes, is hardly name calling! I didnt realise I was in the playground!

Well then I think you are the narrow minded individual if you think that what you clearly stated was not name calling. If you support or associated with those individuals with this development then you can see why there is so much objection with that kind of disregard and attitude to your possible neighbours, not just from those potentially residents but those supplying the children.

It's hardly disregard wanting to support disadvantaged young people, shame more people didnt share my views. As I stated I have been on the receiving end of the generalisation, and continued to work with and support young people. With the right encouragement and environment a difference can be made....maybe consider that.

If everyone had the same opinion, what chances do these children have?

How is it presenting a risk to them? They need to live somewhere, if everyone said the same thing...not here, how are they ever going to feel part of nice community? Surely they deserve a chance?

I got mine and will always be grateful. I just hope others get the same.

Are you blind or simply stupid? The fact that it is in the press, the internet is global and there is so much public knowledge that there is a home with vulnerable kids opening in Hunwick. Not seen the news recently with Saville and Co.

There needs to be a bit of common sense here. As a social worker you would see this and the very risks that all this coverage is now presenting.

Clearly you are Eyes uk fighting your case, you are making it clear to see. If this was not the case you would see the risk presented from the public knowledge. You would see from the objections all 160+ of them that you will never intergrate into the community.

And why is it in the press? Oh yes people against opportunity and chances.

I need say no more.

As for being Eyes Uk, I wish I was. Shame some people don't open theirs.

4 is not very many but I do see the point of the lack of facilities for young people in such a location. Given the economies of scale that can be achieved through the provision of care services on a larger scale - does this argument not underline the desirability from safety and cost perspectives of a return to the larger institutions of care of bygone years.

Hi Voice of reality,

I understand concern when it is something new, but having experienced this first hand from numerous angles, I found placing children together in large facilities totally goes against, individuality and chance. It leads to continued segregation and stereotyping.
Doesn't every child deserve the same life chances? I don't understand why Hunwick is different from anywhere else, the children we are discussing are human beings.
Placements for children are based on warmth and security. Every Child Matters is surely the framework from which children should grow, would they not stand a better chance away from peers with the encouragement of a friendly community?

They are more likely to be segregated and unitegrated into a village. I doubt that Ofsted will give approval to the scheme. Not with 160+ objectors contacting them!

Lucy1810 wrote:
And why is it in the press? Oh yes people against opportunity and chances.

I need say no more.

As for being Eyes Uk, I wish I was. Shame some people don't open theirs.

The only opportunity and chance here is for those making financial gain. The village does not have sufficent transport links or support for those children.

Your passion on here clearly shows of a person strongly linked with getting this childrens home opened. I think some people do have there eyes firmly open to the real fact that the location is unsuitable

I have just visited the planning portal. The first objection is in. Are these people fit to run a childrens home?? I have my doubts

I took my degree in social work some years ago - and Lucy, although we all know your heart is in the right place, it wasn't until I took a further degree in Health and Social Care that I realised how narrow the social service remit was.

This isn't just about what's best for the kids. This about what's best for everybody - including members of the local community of Hunwick.

You must think a little wider than JUST the children. They have to be assimilated and if there are already antagonists out there, then we set them up to fail.

Yes it may be that you are disappointed that there is some opposition, but this is a perfectly justified response from a small village who are comfortable with their current surroundings. Yes, it may seem selfish and hard but then, that's life!

There seems also to be some doubt as to the ability of Eyes UK to undertake this, and rightly so given problems in other areas, so they must be given the chance to get it right.....they will need help doing this too.

Remember, it's not just about the kids.

I appreciate what your saying, I am just highly disappointed there seems little compassion.

I am no hypocrite, I would gladly live next door. As for my passion, if people bother to read as to why it may be there, it doesnt take much working out!

Wow, i do believe i have just read an appalling example, of the selfishness, and complete lack of empathy towards other human beings, Copley 23 your remarks show no empathy at all with children who find themselves in this devastating situation, it seems to me that your position is purely based on maintaining the status quo in Hunwick, your argument of transport, is a non starter, as i would assume that anyone who wishes to open an establishment such as this would have taken it into consideration, Yes indeed some places would be unsuitable, for instance, the very places that these children have come from! Try to have some thought for what they have been through, rather than how it will affect you. and to say that these children may be seen as outcasts is shameful, and only goes to show, that your argument is purely a selfish one. These children deserve the same chance at a normal life, as we all take for granted, and who are you to say which place would be suitable or not, as for the 160 people who voted against this, let them ask themselves if their decision was a selfish or compassionate one !

I spent my entire childhood in care. Not for anything except that my three brothers and I were taken into care by a joint NSPCC and social services action. I can say that in my entire time in care the only really hurtful discrimination I encpuntered came from adults. I never had any problems at school and was very happy in care. In fact I was, as the eldest, given an option of whether to return home but decided not to go as I knew what would happen and unfortunately I was proved correct as my brothers were later taken into care again. However I can see that the same prejudices exist now as did in the 1950s. We were at a home in a wealthy village and encountered considerable hostility from neighbours. On one infamous occasion a couple threw rubbish along the hedgerows and actually came to the home saying we had littered. I would also point out that the company themselves don't help matters by mentioning disadvantaged and emotionally damaged at the same time. You don't always have one with the other. We were in care because my parents were unable and unwilling to look after us properley. Our behaviour was not a factor. I would have one word of caution here, however as it would appear that this is a private company. I don't like private firms being involved in this field.

My faith is restored, their are people who care!!! Its easy isnt to sit back and judge. How about a little thought for others and their plight....may go along way into making a better society for all.

Victor James, I totally empathise with you. I hope your path is now a better one. There is hope for us all;-)

All these unfortunate folk on here gone through the care system? Rubbish! Rutter, Douglas and their staff trying to make the people of Hunwick look like a horrible bunch.

CDixon33 wrote:
All these unfortunate folk on here gone through the care system? Rubbish! Rutter, Douglas and their staff trying to make the people of Hunwick look like a horrible bunch.

Actually I consider myself fortunate. I was well looked after by an enlightened social services department in the 1950s. I dont have a chip on my shoulder, I've done quite well in my chosen career and bought up a family of my own, with grandchilren I'm proud of. I'm also doubly fortunate that I didn't have to rely on people like you for help.

Hilarious isnt it that due to people's own lack of decency, others are judged! My experience was in the South East of London, hmmm quite a distance from Hunwick???

CDixon33 wrote:
All these unfortunate folk on here gone through the care system? Rubbish! Rutter, Douglas and their staff trying to make the people of Hunwick look like a horrible bunch.

How insulting can one person be, first the sterotyping of abused children. Then the way in which it is implied that there couldnt possibly be honest people fighting for the good!!! or actually is it that we dont deserve a voice?
Some people really are narrow minded.

Lucy1810 wrote:
Not at all, I am a Social Worker who cares!

Says it all really... Another 'understanding' social worker... I'd be ashamed to call myself one in this day...

Children in the care system should be actively fostered out to decent families, rather than refusing umpteen applications on say a smoker in the family or someone overweight.. Rather than some BS 'empowering youth' organisation...

CDixon33 wrote:
If you care Lucy and understand the situation then you would agree that it is now the wrong location.

You will never win over the people of Hunwick and as you say, the whole village is against the development, so why press ahead to make so many enermies?

What 4 kids are going to disrupt a whole village...I think not..narrow minded villagers again...Look at the Keys Group home in Cockfield. They had the same doubters and objections, but that went through. Gives this place a chance and stop the " not in my village " narrow minded attitude.. Think 1 day it could be a child of yours that needs help.

ANthony morter wrote:
Wow, i do believe i have just read an appalling example, of the selfishness, and complete lack of empathy towards other human beings, Copley 23 your remarks show no empathy at all with children who find themselves in this devastating situation, it seems to me that your position is purely based on maintaining the status quo in Hunwick, your argument of transport, is a non starter, as i would assume that anyone who wishes to open an establishment such as this would have taken it into consideration, Yes indeed some places would be unsuitable, for instance, the very places that these children have come from! Try to have some thought for what they have been through, rather than how it will affect you. and to say that these children may be seen as outcasts is shameful, and only goes to show, that your argument is purely a selfish one. These children deserve the same chance at a normal life, as we all take for granted, and who are you to say which place would be suitable or not, as for the 160 people who voted against this, let them ask themselves if their decision was a selfish or compassionate one !

Well said..what a bunch of narrow minded people those in Hunwick are objecting to this...Wow not in my back yard attitude...These kids deserve a chance at life.
As for transport plenty buses and taxis, also the care workers will drive.
The kids will be taught locally or in Lilac house itself.
160 people need to take a step back and think how many druggies and robbers live in Hunwick now. Yes there are loads. So have some compassion.! day it could be a child of yours needing help, and what would you say then? You never know what is around the corner.

there comes a point, when each of us has to make a decision on WHO we are as human beings, once you start down the road of worrying if by trying to help someone it will or may change your community, you have basically lost the compassion that we all need to survive, this happened in the WW11, when undesirables wore yellow stars, now obviously i am quoting an extreme case, but i will say that Hunwick is not isolated in it's reaction to this or many other matters, Only we can decide to be compassionate, only we can decide that it is the responsibility of decent citizens, to try to help the underprivileged, not only by clearing our conscience by paying into a charity, but by our day to day actions toward one another . In this case action is needed, and those who are trying to act on behalf of others, need help, not the pettiness and selfishness that seems to have become "the norm" in this country ! "It is not those that do evil that will destroy this World, but those who stand by and do nothing"

tomtopper wrote:

Lucy1810 wrote: Not at all, I am a Social Worker who cares!

Says it all really... Another 'understanding' social worker... I'd be ashamed to call myself one in this day... Children in the care system should be actively fostered out to decent families, rather than refusing umpteen applications on say a smoker in the family or someone overweight.. Rather than some BS 'empowering youth' organisation...

You've obviously had the experience of being sent out on a "sale or return" basis for weekends so that people can decide wether you;re right for them, not too old, the right attitude etc etc. I have and it's excruciating for all parties. What children in care need is protection and most of all stability. However recent comments from such as big-yin have restored my faith in human empathy. The whole things ridiculous. Are four children really going to disrupt an entire village? I think not. I would repeat my experience of being in care, the only really hurtful discrimination I experienced was from adults and the worst offenders were the wealthy. I always wondered whether they thought it mighjt be contagious. I must say, however, that I still have reservations about private companies being involved in this field.

ANthony morter wrote:
Wow, i do believe i have just read an appalling example, of the selfishness, and complete lack of empathy towards other human beings, Copley 23 your remarks show no empathy at all with children who find themselves in this devastating situation, it seems to me that your position is purely based on maintaining the status quo in Hunwick, your argument of transport, is a non starter, as i would assume that anyone who wishes to open an establishment such as this would have taken it into consideration, Yes indeed some places would be unsuitable, for instance, the very places that these children have come from! Try to have some thought for what they have been through, rather than how it will affect you. and to say that these children may be seen as outcasts is shameful, and only goes to show, that your argument is purely a selfish one. These children deserve the same chance at a normal life, as we all take for granted, and who are you to say which place would be suitable or not, as for the 160 people who voted against this, let them ask themselves if their decision was a selfish or compassionate one !

You talk complete rubbish.
I made NO mention of transport.....and lack of empathy..... I said EVERYBODY matters. Not just the kids.
And for the record, I WAS one of these kids.
Read it again - this time with your eyes open.

Sorry in my reply to tomtopper I mean't to say "You've obviously never had the experience of being sent out to potential foster parents on a sale or return basis". I remember vividly the embarrassment and humiliation of being rejected, Nothings actually said but you find you're not invited again. Eventuall I was lucky and sent to rather a good boarding school. Sorry rather went on but I am encouraged by the kind and understanding comments that have come later in this debate. As I said earlier my main concern would not be disruption to the village but the involvement of a private company. Whats in it for them? The events at Rochdale demonstrate the many difficulties in running childrens homes.

Copley 23, i am all for people having their say, but in this instance i think you have clearly shown where your allegiance lies, and as for talking complete rubbish, you definitely win first prize for that! We have had some problems in larger private companies in this country, both in youth care and in care for the elderly so i see exactly where victorjames is coming from, but in this instance, we are talking about 4 children, with from what i can gather as near to a family atmosphere as is possible, but the crux of the matter is people not willing to give these or many other children a chance at a better life, and the stereotyping of children who have been taken away from abusive uncaring backgrounds ! These children should come first ! and it is obvious to me that the people who oppose this have not taken the children into consideration at all, they are interested only in their own selfish agendas, i will say again, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, to help and have compassion for one another, and for those of you who do not wish to be involved in a society that works based on these simple principles, shame on you !! i really hope that these children never get to read some of your remarks !

From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew.

I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it.

I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Is this establishment actually needed? Reading the planning portal, Durham County Council, Children services have stated there is no demand for the home. Failed business plan before they start? I'm sure they know about supply and demand.

It was also good to see all the friends of Douglas and Rutter or future staff putting messages of support for the development, none of which live in Hunwick.

In terms of the business plan I hope they have factored in the costs of the pending legal dispute highlighted in one of the objections.

ANthony morter wrote:
Copley 23, i am all for people having their say, but in this instance i think you have clearly shown where your allegiance lies, and as for talking complete rubbish, you definitely win first prize for that! We have had some problems in larger private companies in this country, both in youth care and in care for the elderly so i see exactly where victorjames is coming from, but in this instance, we are talking about 4 children, with from what i can gather as near to a family atmosphere as is possible, but the crux of the matter is people not willing to give these or many other children a chance at a better life, and the stereotyping of children who have been taken away from abusive uncaring backgrounds ! These children should come first ! and it is obvious to me that the people who oppose this have not taken the children into consideration at all, they are interested only in their own selfish agendas, i will say again, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, to help and have compassion for one another, and for those of you who do not wish to be involved in a society that works based on these simple principles, shame on you !! i really hope that these children never get to read some of your remarks !

Again, as you obviously are on a bit of a crusade here, please quote my comments regarding transport - - or are you simply using me as a whipping post?

Copley 23, these pro home people are Eyes UK. I would not take it personal.

GH2010 wrote:
Copley 23, these pro home people are Eyes UK. I would not take it personal.

Really! Oh thank you, noted.

Then hopefully they understand impact assessments and why planners etc work the way they do.

Good luck to them.

Nobody will argue that we must help children out of difficult circumstances in life, this is why we spend so much on child care. However there are a number of cases in the news which show what happens when such homes are not run to the highest level and for the right reasons. Children's lives are damaged, sometimes beyond repair. We all have a responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen again.

So the issue in Hunwick is not about whether or not children should be given a chance, but is an institition in Hunwick run by the proposers, the best option for Durham County children.

On the coucil website there is a letter written by the MP Pat Glass which really does give a great informed opinion. It apears that County Durham has no demand or need for this service so why is it being proposed ?

Morally it is good idea, but run by people with questionable experience for reasons that cause deep concern. The location just doesn't make any sense. It appears the only reason it is Hunwick is because one of the Eyes UK directors can't sell his house in Hunwick. I sincerely hope this does not proceed and become a headline child care disaster story we read about in the Northern Echo.

Lucy1810 wrote:
From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew. I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it. I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Lucy safe your breath its a dialogue of the deaf. There are deep rooted prejudices demonstrated here which are largely irrational and as I found as a child usually confined to adults. I once remember getting an invitation to tea from a schoolmate, the son of a prominent businessman, whose mothet withdrew the invitation as soon as she knew I was from a childrens home. Its almost as if such children frighten them, perhaps they think its catching? There are however a few sensible and compassionate comments but they get drowned out by the racket,

Copley 23, i am all for people having their say, but in this instance i think you have clearly shown where your allegiance lies, and as for talking complete rubbish, you definitely win first prize for that! We have had some problems in larger private companies in this country, both in youth care and in care for the elderly so i see exactly where victorjames is coming from, but in this instance, we are talking about 4 children, with from what i can gather as near to a family atmosphere as is possible, but the crux of the matter is people not willing to give these or many other children a chance at a better life, and the stereotyping of children who have been taken away from abusive uncaring backgrounds ! These children should come first ! and it is obvious to me that the people who oppose this have not taken the children into consideration at all, they are interested only in their own selfish agendas, i will say again, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, to help and have compassion for one another, and for those of you who do not wish to be involved in a society that works based on these simple principles, shame on you !! i really hope that these children never get to read some of your remarks !

ANthony morter wrote:
Copley 23, i am all for people having their say, but in this instance i think you have clearly shown where your allegiance lies, and as for talking complete rubbish, you definitely win first prize for that! We have had some problems in larger private companies in this country, both in youth care and in care for the elderly so i see exactly where victorjames is coming from, but in this instance, we are talking about 4 children, with from what i can gather as near to a family atmosphere as is possible, but the crux of the matter is people not willing to give these or many other children a chance at a better life, and the stereotyping of children who have been taken away from abusive uncaring backgrounds ! These children should come first ! and it is obvious to me that the people who oppose this have not taken the children into consideration at all, they are interested only in their own selfish agendas, i will say again, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, to help and have compassion for one another, and for those of you who do not wish to be involved in a society that works based on these simple principles, shame on you !! i really hope that these children never get to read some of your remarks !

*yawns*
Why are you repeating yourself and not answering my question?
*finds something better to do*

Troll.

i would like to make it very clear that i am in no way connected to "Eyes only" or any other company that may have an interest in seeing these children placed in a caring environment, having re read all posts, copley 23 the remark regarding transport was not yours and i hope you will accept my sincere apologies for mistakenly mentioning your name with that subject, however i make no apologies for the rest of my posts, this is a country wide problem where people care more about themselves than the needs of others, in fact it is a worldwide problem, think on that, as matters like this, are happening more and more frequently, if i have anything to do with this i am going to try to bring this to more light than it has already, and my reason? this is a case of a village who cares nothing about 4 abused children, and it clearly matters not if it is a private company or a council run home, the decision has been made based on the majority of selfish people who do not want these children in their village, and have gone as far as to say these children would be basically shut out, as not belonging, as i said shame on you, and shame on the village of Hunwick,

Really can't see the problem . In my village of flore in Northampton . We have a home very much like this . With young disabled people in . And there were no problems with the villagers or the parish council . Every one needs a chance in life LET THEM HAVE THEIRS . Anyway I think village life would be good as it's some where that close communities still exist and help each other out . Give it a go and maybe get involved . You might get something out of it yourself

ANthony morter wrote:
i would like to make it very clear that i am in no way connected to "Eyes only" or any other company that may have an interest in seeing these children placed in a caring environment, having re read all posts, copley 23 the remark regarding transport was not yours and i hope you will accept my sincere apologies for mistakenly mentioning your name with that subject, however i make no apologies for the rest of my posts, this is a country wide problem where people care more about themselves than the needs of others, in fact it is a worldwide problem, think on that, as matters like this, are happening more and more frequently, if i have anything to do with this i am going to try to bring this to more light than it has already, and my reason? this is a case of a village who cares nothing about 4 abused children, and it clearly matters not if it is a private company or a council run home, the decision has been made based on the majority of selfish people who do not want these children in their village, and have gone as far as to say these children would be basically shut out, as not belonging, as i said shame on you, and shame on the village of Hunwick,

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I live in the village and am appalled at the behaviour and attitudes of these small minded people whom are in the minority not the majoritynas theynseem to believe. The ring leaders, who give the idea they are pillars of the community, are scaremongering, with certain residents believing the information they are being given. To those caring, supportive writers on here please add your positive comments to the planning website in support of the application. http://planning.wear
valley.gov.uk/portal
/servlets/Applicatio
nSearchServlet?PKID=
71747

Thank you JBrook foe your reply and honesty, in your position as part of this "community" it proves that some people in this village care about their human responsibilities ! aside from the "160" it is warming to know ! Far too much of this snobbery and lack of care is hitting this country, especially in smaller communities, and these are the very places that could do the most good. as for the "is it needed question" Do some research and you will find that up to 3 children a week die of abuse in England and Wales,, that is every week, and does not include those children who spend their lives in terror, or starving, let that percolate through the small minded 160, thank you again Jbrook

I trust the 160 villagers are proud of themselves and their success at taking NIMBYism to a whole new level. The way they are reacting you would think that something evil and bad was planning to takeover their village instead of just 4 children who are to be given the opportunity to try for a better life in a safe and caring environment. This nothing short of bullying and prejudice - shame on you!

Lucy1810 wrote:
From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew.

I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it.

I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Everyone deserves a chance? no one is better than anyone else?.. Does this include, say, baby p's mother??

I find the above statement wholly offensive and typical neo liberal claptrap..

To say I am no better than folk such as brady, huntley, sutcliffe, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, paedos, terrorists, con artists etc etc etc, is a massive insult..

Take your rose tinted specs off please and look at things in the real world..

Kids in care should be fostered to decent working example families, rather than being the subject of some (probably marxist influenced) social engineering exercise...

As for the village in question, a simple, inclusive referendum of all those whom reside there, would democratically decide whether its a no or a go.. No one can then argue really...

tomtopper wrote:

Lucy1810 wrote:
From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew.

I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it.

I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Everyone deserves a chance? no one is better than anyone else?.. Does this include, say, baby p's mother??

I find the above statement wholly offensive and typical neo liberal claptrap..

To say I am no better than folk such as brady, huntley, sutcliffe, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, paedos, terrorists, con artists etc etc etc, is a massive insult..

Take your rose tinted specs off please and look at things in the real world..

Kids in care should be fostered to decent working example families, rather than being the subject of some (probably marxist influenced) social engineering exercise...

As for the village in question, a simple, inclusive referendum of all those whom reside there, would democratically decide whether its a no or a go.. No one can then argue really...

I wonder what life chances Peter Connelly mother had? The disgraceful life this baby faced is deplorable. I wonder if society had been different, would she have had more opportunity, would things have been different? People are not born evil, contrary to popular belief. It is easy to point a finger.

At which point did I refer to you as brady, huntley, sutcliffe...etc I dont believe I did.

In the perfect world I would not have a job, or the children in question would be fostered to ideal families. However as is rapidly becoming evident its far from a perfect world. With a shortage of 10000 placements, and 46000 children at risk of abuse. So your case of where the children SHOULD be, does not really count for much!

My rose tinted glasses unfortunately will never be, as society makes sure of that!

What difference would it be if these children were fostered in the same home? the children needing support and security would not change. Would your thoughts?

tom topper, i don't wish to burst your ego bubble but you are in fact "no Better than anyone else" ans deserve no more or less a chance than anyone else, as for pointing out the likes of Brady and Hindley etc, i believe you will find they they believed themselves to be "different" as well, and went out of their way to prove it ! no one has compared anyone here with any of those that, are evil at all, in fact it seems that this village has decided that may be the case, without any proof whatsoever,, the point is "should we open our hearts and minds to helping those less fortunate"? and of course we should, not find stupid and selfish excuses, to avoid any change in our status quo !

I can understand about the festering thing, however we live in a planned community where just about everyone is a great neighbor. Now I can see that these people in the Village of Hunwick they refuse to accept these kids to be around in their neighborhood it's because of their background.What a shame if these people refuses to accept these kids to be a part in their community. Where is your love, your compassion, everybody need a second chance in life.

Here's the list people in Hunwick you are probably thinking "Oh man my thought exactly bad neighbours.
Junk all over the place, fighting. spying on you, gossiping, and the list goesn on...
The question for this post is what to do about them..I will not hold you in suspense..the answer is nothing. The issue is more about your own personality than anything else.Most neighbors, with the exception of a few obvious ones, are decent people with slightly different views on things. A big problem is called festering. Here is a scenario: You move into a new neighborhood and live there for a few years. No one (because of the new world we live in) ever really gets to know each other, or introduces themselves to each other, for that matter. You keep noticing different things that your neighbors do (and trust me, we all notice the things our neighbors do, and vice-versa). After a while, you start complaining to yourself about all the bad things and silly things that everyone in the neighborhood does and these things become REALLY annoying to you. This is where it starts…and very soon, you may snap. Have you ever had this feeling?

Now, think about your childhood. Think back about how much you used to scream or terrorize the neighborhood and how much of a mess you used to make…your bike laying on the front yard for days. Think about how the basketball hoop was on its side in the driveway for months at a time right next to the broken lawnmower. Think about the effect that had on your neighbors.

Now think about today. Think about how much your dog barks and how much your kids scream. Now, think about the neighbors that you do like and actually talk to. What kind of annoying things do they do? If you really pay attention, they probably do most of the things that everyone else does, but you don’t pay attention to it anymore because you like these people. Why do you like them? Most likely because they introduced themselves to you way back when you first moved in and now you have an affinity toward them. I guess it’s common human nature…dislike and distrust of the unknown or unfamiliar.
Say you have a neighbor who is a slob. What ever happened to the world where one of us walked over there and asked if we could help out? No, I guess we don’t do that anymore.

The point is this – we all come from different sub-cultures and cultures. We all have different ways of doing things. We have got to learn how to put up with one another or we will just live our lives complaining about one another. Let’s get involved with the sloppy guy and the kids down the road.Let’s try to understand what makes these people tick and get used to them, because if we don’t, we will just keep running to different towns across the country to one day find a perfectly situation neighborhood full of people just like us. After a few months, we will find something we don’t like about them either.

Think hard before you choose to dismiss your neighbors, because they will most likely be the ones to call the fire department if your house is on fire or stop on the highway when you have a flat tire. At least try to love…or at a minimum like thy neighbor.

ANthony morter wrote:
tom topper, i don't wish to burst your ego bubble but you are in fact "no Better than anyone else" ans deserve no more or less a chance than anyone else, as for pointing out the likes of Brady and Hindley etc, i believe you will find they they believed themselves to be "different" as well, and went out of their way to prove it ! no one has compared anyone here with any of those that, are evil at all, in fact it seems that this village has decided that may be the case, without any proof whatsoever,, the point is "should we open our hearts and minds to helping those less fortunate"? and of course we should, not find stupid and selfish excuses, to avoid any change in our status quo !

Another egalitarian idiot... Yes, no one compared anyone, but if I am no better than anyone else, then by default I am the same as those people yes? What they then believe is thus irrelevant...

Most people who think they are 'different' in the logical context I was talking i.e better, usually go on to achieve great things and become a success in life...

Inequality exists full stop.. It has to.. Otherwise we all revert to the lowest common denominator.. Which is only beneficial to our enemies..

Unfairness, and with it a sense of gradation is inevitable... The silliest response is to deny this truth..Equality strangles common sense period..

We'd all love the utopian ideal of everyone benefiting fairly and equally in society.. Unfortunately real life doesn't quite work like that..

Lucy1810 wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Lucy1810 wrote:
From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew.

I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it.

I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Everyone deserves a chance? no one is better than anyone else?.. Does this include, say, baby p's mother??

I find the above statement wholly offensive and typical neo liberal claptrap..

To say I am no better than folk such as brady, huntley, sutcliffe, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, paedos, terrorists, con artists etc etc etc, is a massive insult..

Take your rose tinted specs off please and look at things in the real world..

Kids in care should be fostered to decent working example families, rather than being the subject of some (probably marxist influenced) social engineering exercise...

As for the village in question, a simple, inclusive referendum of all those whom reside there, would democratically decide whether its a no or a go.. No one can then argue really...

I wonder what life chances Peter Connelly mother had? The disgraceful life this baby faced is deplorable. I wonder if society had been different, would she have had more opportunity, would things have been different? People are not born evil, contrary to popular belief. It is easy to point a finger.

At which point did I refer to you as brady, huntley, sutcliffe...etc I dont believe I did.

In the perfect world I would not have a job, or the children in question would be fostered to ideal families. However as is rapidly becoming evident its far from a perfect world. With a shortage of 10000 placements, and 46000 children at risk of abuse. So your case of where the children SHOULD be, does not really count for much!

My rose tinted glasses unfortunately will never be, as society makes sure of that!

What difference would it be if these children were fostered in the same home? the children needing support and security would not change. Would your thoughts?

Baby P's mother had no more chances than a friend of mine who suffered horrific domestic abuse and more.. Brought up in a terrible enviroment, she vowed never to subject her children to such... Her children went on to become successes.. A barrister, a top engineer and a HSE executive no less.. She didn't sit there and oversee the brutal abuse of her own nor snap their spines..

Your statement of defence of that inhuman piece of scum tells me everything I need know about you as a person and also reinforces what I believe is wrong with todays society and why it's so sick and violent.. Only a warped and sick mind would defend such inhuman scum...

Lucy1810 wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Lucy1810 wrote:
From what started as a positive comment, and a sense of hope that people do care, has turned into a debate that has just opened my eyes further to what I already knew.

I couldn't care less if I am referred to as a 'a do gooder Social Worker', what I care about is that a support people that need and deserve it.

I can sleep knowing I always have and always will, challenge prejudicial views. Everyone deserves a chance, no one is better than anyone else. Regardless of what some may think.

Everyone deserves a chance? no one is better than anyone else?.. Does this include, say, baby p's mother??

I find the above statement wholly offensive and typical neo liberal claptrap..

To say I am no better than folk such as brady, huntley, sutcliffe, drug dealers, thieves, rapists, paedos, terrorists, con artists etc etc etc, is a massive insult..

Take your rose tinted specs off please and look at things in the real world..

Kids in care should be fostered to decent working example families, rather than being the subject of some (probably marxist influenced) social engineering exercise...

As for the village in question, a simple, inclusive referendum of all those whom reside there, would democratically decide whether its a no or a go.. No one can then argue really...

I wonder what life chances Peter Connelly mother had? The disgraceful life this baby faced is deplorable. I wonder if society had been different, would she have had more opportunity, would things have been different? People are not born evil, contrary to popular belief. It is easy to point a finger.

At which point did I refer to you as brady, huntley, sutcliffe...etc I dont believe I did.

In the perfect world I would not have a job, or the children in question would be fostered to ideal families. However as is rapidly becoming evident its far from a perfect world. With a shortage of 10000 placements, and 46000 children at risk of abuse. So your case of where the children SHOULD be, does not really count for much!

My rose tinted glasses unfortunately will never be, as society makes sure of that!

What difference would it be if these children were fostered in the same home? the children needing support and security would not change. Would your thoughts?

In reply to your other points .. At no point did you make any comparisons between me and any particular person, but saying I was no better than anyone else made a default comparison against anyone... You see my point? I can't be different to those people mentioned as I am no better than anyone else right? ... Well I beg to differ..

As you actively pursue an unreachable utopian ideal, i.e. equality, maybe you should actively resign your post, in respect of the other equally utopian ideal, i.e. a perfect world..

Shortage of placements is more down to the social engineering criteria of a typically marxist/feminist social service rather than actual decent families looking to adopt.. You people are the architects of your own (and others) misery

Some people really are full of their own self importance...you just carry on with your opinionated, discriminatory views. They have very little effect and will not change the opinion of myself and a lot of others...the debate on hear speaks volumes, as you will be well aware. You pat yourself on the back, be proud to be british!

It truly is laughable that all this is due to offering 4 children a chance...very very sad, and totally disgusting!

I also didnt defend the actions, but asked to look at the cause...its very easy to look at the consequences..its far harder to look further! But hey it might be better to all sit back, wait until something horrific happens, then blame who is directly linked. Something a lot of people seem good at. I'd rather get my hands dirty, not sit on the fence. Change starts with the basics!

Lucy1810 wrote:
Some people really are full of their own self importance...you just carry on with your opinionated, discriminatory views. They have very little effect and will not change the opinion of myself and a lot of others...the debate on hear speaks volumes, as you will be well aware. You pat yourself on the back, be proud to be british!

Yes, some people are full of their own importance... People such as Baby p's army of social workers including the arrogant overseer...

And also people whom shout down anyone who opposes their viewpoint.

This is usually when they roll out the old 'discrimination' chestnut, when they're unable to answer valid and logical views/responses put forward...

Opposing viewpoints have very little effect and will never change the opinion of those who are full of self importance... Sound familiar?

The debates on this site are pretty much democratic, unlike the social service ethos...

You should maybe pat yourself on the back, after and be proud to be no better than I am

Lucy1810 wrote:
It truly is laughable that all this is due to offering 4 children a chance...very very sad, and totally disgusting!

Is this where you attempt to make the issue more emotive by expressing your disgust at the fact that I dared question social services general motives and practices, by making me out to be some evil child hater? ..

"You disagree with me, therefore you're a child hater, how disgusting" .. Typical left/marxist ruse against informed debate..

'Children' when the neo-liberals want you to appear nasty, 'young people' when they want to sexualise them with contraception etc..

What may well be more disgusting is the refusal to foster out children to decent families that dont fit the PC agenda...

Lucy1810 wrote:
I also didnt defend the actions, but asked to look at the cause...its very easy to look at the consequences..its far harder to look further! But hey it might be better to all sit back, wait until something horrific happens, then blame who is directly linked. Something a lot of people seem good at. I'd rather get my hands dirty, not sit on the fence. Change starts with the basics!

I take it you're referring to that thing who was supposed to be looking after baby p..?

60 plus visits by social workers 'getting their hands dirty' and no doubt sympathizing with that thing who was his mother .. 50 injuries on the child, and all the social workers are interested in is claiming compo for unfair dismissal.. Some would say social services appear to be a bit of a 'disgusting' organisation at times...

God knows what else goes on that we don't hear about... And all because 'we 're no better than anyone else'...

Well I see that Eyes UK are still here trying to spit roast the good folk of Hunwick. Looking at the planning portal you are getting the same strong objections as before. Time to move on and find a more suitable location.

Good grief talk about blowing something out of proportion . The fact that people are arguing about this before anything has been granted . As a community Hunwick is a small one and any "outsiders" are going to stick out like a sore thumb ,but at least you know these children are going to be supervised . On the flip side if some one was moving into the village with a large family would you do the same . After all strangers are strangers and who knows what the person or people next door get up to behind closed doors and how long before it affects you?. It's a classic case of not in my back yard senario and the suggestion that it would be better off in Bishop Auckland is a classic statement . I live close to a refuge for vulnerable young mothers and this was placed without residents realising it and I'm sure there would have been objection and in the 5-6 years this has been opened there has been minimal if any problems with this placement . It is good there are places like this otherwise the papers maybe filled with headlines bemoaning the fact that children are living on the streets and something should be done about it. After all it could be worse it could be a bail hostel or halfway house for sexual deviants and that would never do! sic!

Lucy you are totally right , children are our future and if it wasn't for the badly behaved adults who have abused and broken there trust we wouldn't need these homes! I despair at how people bring their kids up these days, leaving them home alone at from the age of 10 while they take themselves to work, introducing them to there different B/F that come and go, disgusting.Child abuse comes in different disguises and people need to open there eyes and see what is going on around them. If this home helps young children then great im all for it!

Ann Coffey has scored a victory in her campaign for a planning clampdown on unruly private children's homes that import young offenders into Stockport.

Ms Coffey has been concerned that private children's homes have been allowed to set up lucrative businesses in residential areas of Stockport without seeking any planning permission or consulting local residents.

She has received a recent influx of letters and emails from distressed Stockport residents who are at the end of their tether after suffering abuse and anti-social behaviour from young people in the homes.

The residents complained that they were not consulted about the change of use of houses next door to them, which changed abruptly, without planning permission, from being ordinary family homes to children's homes housing troubled teenagers.

Ms Coffey took their complaints about the planning laws to Stockport Council and the planning minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government and last night she held an adjournment debate in the House of Commons to highlight the issue.

In the Commons, Ms Coffey said that Stockport Council had responded by issuing new planning guidance which she said would be welcomed by her constituents.

The guidance states that all proposals for new buildings for children's homes will require planning permission and that, in most cases, planning permission will be required for change of use.

Stockport has more than 30 private children's homes and has been having difficulties with the very high number of children and young people placed in them from other local authority areas.

Fifty three per cent of all looked after children in Stockport are from outside the borough – one of the highest in the country – compared with the national average of 35 per cent.

Many of the children - who live in the homes about which Ms Coffey received complaints - are from outside Stockport and are prolific and priority offenders. The home owners charge up to £4,500 a week per child and advertise aggressively for hard-line offenders from outside Stockport. Some are coining in more than £40,000 a month.

Before the new guidance, children's homes in Stockport had been allowed to set up without having to seek planning permission under the Class C3 (Dwelling House) criteria of the Town and Country Planning Order 1987. This made it possible for a house that has been used by a single person or family to be used by up to six unrelated persons living together as a single household without the need for planning permission.

Under the stricter criteria of C2 (Residential Institutions) there has to be planning permission and consultation with local people.

"Badly run children's homes can have such a fundamental impact on people's lives and are a massive drain on services, such as the police, education and adolescent and mental health services. They should not be just allowed to spring up unannounced in communities," Ms Coffey told MPs.

Ms Coffey raised the case of one Stockport man and his mother who live next door to children's home.

"He wrote to me about, what he described as, their "monumentally distressing situation". He and his mother have been subjected too much abuse and damage to their home. He described how the home for young people came into existence without local people knowing anything about it or being given a say in the change of use form a private dwelling house," she said.

Responding for the government, Ian Austin, the planning minister, referred to Stockport's new guidance and said that he would expect most children's homes to fall into the same use class as other residential institutions, such as nursing homes of training centres – the stricter class C2 – which means they must seek planning permission and consult local residents.

He also agreed to hold a further meeting with Ms Coffey on the issue to examine how the law could be further clarified.

CDixon33 wrote:
Are you blind or simply stupid? The fact that it is in the press, the internet is global and there is so much public knowledge that there is a home with vulnerable kids opening in Hunwick. Not seen the news recently with Saville and Co.

There needs to be a bit of common sense here. As a social worker you would see this and the very risks that all this coverage is now presenting.

Clearly you are Eyes uk fighting your case, you are making it clear to see. If this was not the case you would see the risk presented from the public knowledge. You would see from the objections all 160+ of them that you will never intergrate into the community.

This comment seems way off the mark and slightly manic not to mention a little insulting. I agree with Lucy1810s comments. I would not have objection to this home being placed near me. I would not even have a concern considering the narrow margins of type of youngster that will be placed their. I put it to you that you are an example of NIMBYism.
1. It is probable from the change in stance of the company that the majority of letters against the home mentioned certain extreme things which have now been addressed.
2. A petition is only as good as the information given to the people signing, and if as I suspect you were part of the group collecting signatures, it is no wonder people may have had a warped idea of reality.
3. I believe that small homes of this type with well trained individuals running it is a best option either as a short stop before fostering or as an alternative if fostering is not possible. Location is very good.

CDixon33 wrote:
You would just give up. These kids are not going to blend in and have any normality.

Hunwick is out of the way for this kind of establishment, a poor location and a bad idea. I honestly cannot see it getting approved by Ofsted simply because the of the opposition from the local residents. Suggest they try a town location such as Bishop Auckland

Normal is a cycle on a washing machine, your assignations are not normal but bigoted, as others on this topic. you would have been at home in 30's Germany.

CDixon33 wrote:
Lucy, calling the people of Hunwick names, especially if your a Social Worker is hardly going to support the development, you probably looking to place children.

People are worried about the kids causing troble, now their social worker is calling the people of Hunwick! Now that leaves me speachless!!

There is always trouble in Hunwick, my Mother dare not go out after fdark because of 'normal' kids gang culture and antisocial behaviour.

tom topper, you really have a huge chip on your shoulder, stop trying to place people as better or worse, and think !!!! we are not talking about your education , the way your moral compass is aiming in the right direction, or not ! lets keep it simple so that you can keep up !! all people deserve the same chance in life, now, if they do not wish to take that chance, that is up to them, if they turn into criminals they should be punished for their crimes, but as intelligent human beings we take into consideration mitigating circumstances, and the decide on a course of action"hope you are still with me" however in this instance that is not what we are talking about, these children, who have committed no crimes need to live somewhere,, still there tomtopper? and someone has offered to try to help,, i think thats a good thing, don't you? now a lot of nasty people have got together and tried to stop this for no other than their own agendas, other people in the village have made that clear, so ignoring the terrible people that you are referring too do you think these kids, who are guiltless deserve a chance,,, simple,, and please never refer to me as an idiot, as you must well know by now, calling names is the act of a child!

This looks like a national problem now being addressed by local and national governements.

BBC Article: Are some children's homes putting profit before child protection?

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/education-1864
9389

I have been reading some of the comments posted by many people who have no knowledge of the village, the planning application or the background to the particular proposal in question. Many are regarding the attitudes of the village as negative towards individual children when that is NOT true.
The local population opposed the introduction of this institution on very good planning grounds and the propsosal was removed. The individuals involved are now trying to circumvent the normal planning and control procedures.
This proposal is on business grounds only! and has nothing to do with the well being and care of the young in the local area.
If Lucy1810 thinks that any good will come of offering children, from out of the area,a place in a village which patently does not wish them to be, from a "business" which does not care about the village then I think she should re-appraise her standpoint.

IanfromCrook wrote:

CDixon33 wrote:
Are you blind or simply stupid? The fact that it is in the press, the internet is global and there is so much public knowledge that there is a home with vulnerable kids opening in Hunwick. Not seen the news recently with Saville and Co.

There needs to be a bit of common sense here. As a social worker you would see this and the very risks that all this coverage is now presenting.

Clearly you are Eyes uk fighting your case, you are making it clear to see. If this was not the case you would see the risk presented from the public knowledge. You would see from the objections all 160+ of them that you will never intergrate into the community.

This comment seems way off the mark and slightly manic not to mention a little insulting. I agree with Lucy1810s comments. I would not have objection to this home being placed near me. I would not even have a concern considering the narrow margins of type of youngster that will be placed their. I put it to you that you are an example of NIMBYism.
1. It is probable from the change in stance of the company that the majority of letters against the home mentioned certain extreme things which have now been addressed.
2. A petition is only as good as the information given to the people signing, and if as I suspect you were part of the group collecting signatures, it is no wonder people may have had a warped idea of reality.
3. I believe that small homes of this type with well trained individuals running it is a best option either as a short stop before fostering or as an alternative if fostering is not possible. Location is very good.

"It is probable from the change in stance of the company that the majority of letters against the home mentioned certain extreme things which have now been addressed".....

The proposers are deluded if they believe this statement is remotely true.

It should be noted that it is a CRIMINAL offence to knowingly include statements in a planning application which are not true or the proposers knowingly have no intention or no ability to deliver.