Badman correspondence withheld by DCSF

[noschool]

The DCSF is withholding information originally requested on 23 February via the FOI Act relating to correspondence between the department and Graham Badman. Why the delay in saying no?

What Do They Know: Graham Badman DCSF correspondence

While I can confirm that the Department holds information within scope of your request it is being withheld because the following exemptions apply:

Section 35(1)(a) of the Act. This exemption is engaged in respect of all the information within scope of your request because the information relates to the formulation and development of government policy. As this is a qualified exemption under the Act the Department is required to balance the public interest in releasing the information against that in wwithholding the information. The Department recognises the general public interest in openness, transparency and being able to hold government to account; it accepts that release of the information could give the public insight into how such reviews are set up and conducted; and it accepts that release of the information could provide reassurance that this review is properly commissioned and constituted. Conversely it recognises that release of the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice effective policy formulation and development through inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views, both in this and future reviews. The Department notes that this review was at the time of the request, and is currently, still in progress. It notes that the reasons for the review and the appointment of Mr Badman have been announced publicly. It also considers that the paramount public interest lies in securing a thorough and well-conducted review which is able to take account of a wider range of views and reach and express its conclusions without distraction as swiftly as possible. In the Department's view the balance of public interest therefore falls clearly in favour of withholding the information.

We can therefore assume that they really don't want us to know what we know they know we know. Let's hope this will be appealed to the ICO.

Section 40 of the Act. This exemption is engaged in respect of some of the information within scope of your request which contains personal data, the release of which would contravene the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. As this is an absolute exemption the Department is not required to run a test to balance the public interest in withholding the information against that in release.

Shame ContactPoint doesn't extend the same safeguards for children and families.

Section 43 of the Act. This exemption is engaged in respect of some of the information within scope of your request, the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests, including those of the Department. As this is a qualified exemption under the Act the Department is required to balance the public interest in releasing the information against that in withholding the information. While the Department recognises the general public interest in openness, transparency and being able to hold government to account and that there is particular interest in financial matters, it takes the view that public interest is best served by being able to conduct discussions about contractual matters in a way which respects confidentiality, especially during the period of the work in question, and which does not adversely impact on future negotiations. The key public interest lies
both in securing a thorough and well-conducted review which is able to take account of a wider range of views and reach and express its conclusions without distraction as swiftly as possible, and in protecting commercially sensitive information.

So they are all in it for their own commercial interests and the outcome of the review will have been predetermined to serve these "sensitive" interests.

[Diane]

I think I'd be sending a list of what the DCSF is doing to the Conservatives saying, essentially, that the government seems to be preparing to make money out of home educators. (And is already paying some school-saturated 'retired' bloke a whole lot of money for a 'review' that is not needed. Another way of wasting taxpayers' money).

Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com

[Diane]

Analysis: The Badman review of the Baby P case

'This perspective framed the way professionals viewed Peter's subsequent injuries, the original report concluded. Wrong-footed by the mother, and seemingly never quite getting enough solid evidence to warrant a criminal charge or issue care proceedings, they effectively gave her the benefit of the doubt. The overwhelming sense of the first review is of well-meaning professionals struggling to bring a clear focus to an infernally complex, chaotic and constantly shifting situation.

Badman is scathing of this. He argues that social workers in particular were too timid. Professionals "over-identified with the parent", and were even bullied by her.

While the original report gives no clear picture of the mother, Badman portrays her as an arch-manipulator, subverting the professionals, "a dominating and forceful personality", eminently capable of intimidation.

Badman also rejects the assertion that the agencies could not have known about the malign presence of the boyfriend. More diligence would have sniffed him out.

Badman's interpretation, fashioned with access to more information, is at times clear-sighted in spotting of unforgiveable errors, at others unforgiving of understandable human failings.

Professionals should be more interventionist: if they suspect abuse, they should act on it, even if they are proved to be mistaken. "Better that than the harm the child will experience."'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...reports-badman


Diane
http://www.threedegreesoffreedom.blogspot.com

[noschool]

Badman has obviously no concept of the damage false referrals and over interventions do to children and families. Nor does he appear to be aware of the cost implications of unnecessary interventions.

What we really really need is more well trained professional social workers with specialist training and experience in child protection, and the reinstatement of the child protection register - not the paedophiles' address book known as ContactPoint, which will place children at increased risk of significant harm.