This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 10th February 2005
Members of INNOCENT, the Manchester-based group of families and friends of miscarriage of justice victims reacted angrily to Tony Blair’s apology to the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven.
They were very pleased for these eleven victims and their families. What miscarriage of justice victims want above all, more than any amount of compensation, is an apology. But so do all the other numerous miscarriage of justice victims.
Chairperson of INNOCENT Ann Craven addressed the following personal message to Tony Blair, reflecting the feelings of the whole group:
“How dare you apologise to these eleven people and not for my son who suffered a miscarriage of justice and spent time in one of your prisons, after having his conviction quashed by the Courts of Justice he was denied any compensation or help nor an apology from any government department, the trauma we as a family went through was not different than the said above. The trauma my son went through being in prison for a crime he had not committed was terrible, he still has not fully recovered from the time he spent in prison, he also has flashbacks, but will he get any help from you or an apology, I DON’T THINK SO. Because he is not political and you have nothing to gain by apologising to him as he is neither Irish nor American, only English.
“What of the other miscarriages of justice that have happened in this country by the government system? Kevin Callan who has died - if he had help when his conviction was quashed he might be alive today so you don’t have to apologise to him, but his family who suffered could do with an apology. Will they get one? I DON’T THINK SO. Because they also are not political.
“Also will Graham Huckerby who has just had his conviction quashed by the Courts of justice, get an apology from you? I DON’T THINK SO. Because he is not political.
“There is a long list of miscarriages of justice but will you bother with any of them? I DON’T THINK SO. Unless they are political and you need to cultivate favours, you will not bother at all.”
Dr Michael Naughton, who lectures in law at Bristol University, added:
“Any acknowledgement from Government that innocent people are wrongly convicted by the criminal justice system is welcome. We invite the Prime Minister to engage in a serious dialogue about the inevitability of innocent people being wrongly convicted and the difficulties they face in trying to overturn their wrongful convictions through the existing mechanisms.
“When convictions are quashed it is because the previous criminal conviction is 'unsafe' not because the wrongly convicted are innocent. So we wait to see if the Prime Minister's apology represents a shift in criminal justice process and a more meaningful debate about the wrongful conviction of the innocent and the possibility of judicial recognition of the problem.
“ By singling out an individual case from 30 years ago the impression is that wrongful convictions are rare and exceptional. This runs counter to the fact that since 1986, for example, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force, and we were told that there would not be any more miscarriages of justice, there have been over 85,000 successful appeals against criminal conviction in England and Wales, or around 25 successful appeals a day - indicating that 'justice in error' is a routine feature of the criminal justice process.
“We agree that the apology to the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 will help those individuals to move forward with their lives and give them a certain finality about their miscarriages of justice.
“The problem is, though, that it only exacerbates the harm to other victims. I have already had Paddy Hill from the Birmingham 6 and Mike O' Brien from the Cardiff Newsagent 3 on the phone and their question is: where are our apologies? They want to know if the Government believe them to be guilty!”
Dr Andrew Green, co-founder of INNOCENT, said:
“Tony Blair’s apology might appear to suggest that the government is sympathetic to miscarriage of justice victims, and that it is opposed to wrongful convictions. But the record suggests otherwise.
“The prison service throws exonerated prisoners out on the street without money to live on, while his officials have even forced victims to pay for board and lodging while they were wrongly imprisoned.
“This government’s legislation, such as restrictions on rights to disclosure of the results of police investigations, can only increase the number of miscarriages of justice. Ministers have argued for a reduction in the rights of defendants, so that the police can more easily obtain convictions against those they think are guilty – inevitably leading to more miscarriages of justice.”
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 14th February 2005
There was a very interesting article in the Guardian on 9th February 2005 concerning teachers attitudes towards touching children and the negative impact this has on the child's development. Since then a London F.A.C.T. member has written to the Editor of the Guardian with this response.
Sir
Josie Appleton’s thought provoking feature on the growing panic among childcare professionals about touching young children in their care (Losing Touch G2, Feb 9) highlights the way that the current child protection system in this country is not only working against the very section of society it is trying to protect but is also emotionally abusing children.
The recent drive by the Teachers Training Agency to recruit male primary school teachers has failed and now only one trainee primary school teacher in eight is male. In Australia and New Zealand, the numbers of male teachers entering junior school and nurseries are negligible in many areas with the major deterrent identified as the fear of allegations of abuse. The loser in all this is the child as studies by the New Zealand Early Childhood Research Network have shown that the moral panic about child abuse, that has seen teachers becoming increasingly guarded about touching children, is contributing to sterile and uncaring teaching environments.
Life is about balance, no more so than in the development of our young children and an increasing number are in single parent families where the only male role models are the teachers. Rather than allow the profession to continue its movement towards becoming women-only it needs to address these issues and discuss them openly.
Trevor
London F.A.C.T. member
Thankyou Trevor for bringing this to our notice.
Useful Statistics
Posted by News Editor
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 14th February 2005
We are often asked where one can find reliable statistics about the number of false allegations made against carers or teachers?
It is very difficult to get hold of reliable statistics regarding the numbers of allegations made against teachers and/or the number who were subject to disciplinary action or dismissal because relevant agencies do not keep such statistics.
To compound matters there are also serious problems of definition regarding the word abuse and allegation. Abuse can mean some thing quite minor such as rudeness or something very serious e.g. a criminal assault such as physical abuse or sexual abuse. Allegation can mean anything from a comment, a criticism or a complaint, and may range from some thing which is true, partly true and partly untrue, or entirely false. Allegations can be misconstrued, unreliable, false, or indeed malicious.
You will find some statistics on our web site
Other sources I can recommend can be found on the NASUWT website here and here, here and here
Also take a look at a the Home Affairs Select Committee Report into Past Cases of Abuse in children's Homes which has some statistics in it
Another UK Government site to look which has some relevant statistical information at is the DfES website
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 14th February 2005
There has been a lot of concern in recent months about secrecy in Family Courts. Members might wish to know that the Government have issued a consultation paper on the disclosure of information in Family Proceedings Cases involving children.
This consultation paper from the Department for Constitutional Affairs sets out the Government's proposals for the circumstances in which information from family proceedings cases involving children can be disclosed without permission of the court. The Government is seeking views on the proposed content of rules of court which would specify who could disclose information to whom, the information they could disclose and in what circumstances disclosure would be permissible.
The consultation document can be accessed on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website. Responses are sought by 23 March 2005.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on the 17th February 2005
The DfES (UK) have published a number of booklets concerning false allegations in schools. These include the following titles
We have been asked to provide information about how LEAs and Governing Bodies investigate allegations made against teachers. In general most schools have their own arrangements, however they are required to take note of advice given to them by the DfES. The following documents form part of this advice.
Definitions and Thresholds for Managing Allegations Against School Staff (Jan 2004)
Managing the Aftermath of Unfounded and Unsubstantiated Allegations (Jan 2004)
Staff Subject to Allegations (Jan 2004)
Guidance For Education Staff Facing Allegations Of Abuse (August 2004)
Another useful document to examine is Child Protection: Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Young Persons in the Education Service. This contains a particularly useful section on the workings of the Criminal Records Bureau, and the difference between basic, standard and enhanced disclosures.
This guidance has been produced by the National Network of Investigation and Referral Support Co-ordinators with the support of the DfES, Department for Education and Science. The guidance provides useful advice to local authorities and governing bodies. They are well worth looking at as they provide a useful benchmark by which good practice can be be measured.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 17th February 2005
A group of young people from the State’s foster care system has called on Families and Communities Minister Jay Weatherill to publicly apologise for ‘highly insulting, belittling and dumb’ comments he made about foster children in Parliament late last year.
Mr Ben Dunne, founder of a newly formed SA action group called Foster Proud, said Minister Weatherill’s description of foster children as ‘human wreckage’[1]on 8th December 2004 just added to negative views the community typically held about those in care.
Mr Dunne, a former state ward, resident of institutions and foster child himself, said “Foster Proud members believe the Minister’s offensive and unjustified comments undermine the great work that lobby groups for kids in care like the Create Foundation and the Youth Affairs Council have done in promoting a more positive and accurate image.”
“Foster Proud demands that the Minister makes a full apology about his comments and keeps his private views to himself in the future” he said. “Life during and after foster care is challenging enough without the Government writing us off as losers and tarnishing us all for life.”
Mr Weatherill made his comments when the Opposition raised concerns about a letter[2] from the Create Foundation concerning interviewing techniques used by the Department of Families and Communities’ new Special Investigation Unit which has been established to investigate around 300 child abuse complaints made against SA’s 800 foster carers each year[3].
Several young foster care graduates decided to form Foster Proud as an action group to publicise issues that are ‘making the State’s foster care system collapse’. Foster Proud has been modelled on the Irish foundation, Let Our Voices Emerge (L.O.V.E.) Within a month Foster Proud had over 60 members just through word of mouth and is quickly growing. Foster carers and biological parents were also getting involved to provide a joint voice, as well as members of the Aboriginal community.
“We will put the Government on notice for many issues the public should know about foster care in SA. We want everyone to know that most of us have found foster care to be a positive experience and that we have not all been abused in care like the Government and its Investigations Unit seem to think.”
Foster Proud was not government funded and would not be stopped by fear of funding loss in bringing government negligence in many areas of foster care to the public’s attention.
“We won’t stand by and let bad things continue. We want to bring about real improvements rather than the usual government broken promises. Otherwise foster care will be gone and kids will end up in big institutions again”.
“Well intended Government action to the current abuse in care hysteria has made things much worse for many children and young people in foster care. Our chances for a normal life in a family are vanishing. The State Government is inviting former wards to give unchallenged claims of abuse to the Mullighan Inquiry, saying compensation will be available. Many foster carers are resigning or going ‘on hold’ because they are scared of having false allegations made against them. Those who are left are harassed by paranoid social workers and have become paranoid themselves. The kids miss out because of unrealistic rules and a lack of trust because of the high number of allegations being made and government investigators believing them no matter what”.
“It’s a joke that they seem to believe anything we say about abuse but won’t believe a thing we say if we are accused of a crime, even as adults. We’ve also had reports where DFC investigators have yelled at kids and have forced some to sign statements after really long interviews [4]. They’re even interviewing those who have left the State’s care over 10 years ago and are showing up at people’s houses unannounced, using our old private files. Apparently they have also offered compensation to get allegations. It just doesn’t sound right to us. They should just be seeking the truth”.
“Police should handle any real abuse cases. It is intensely insulting and painful for those of us genuinely abused as children to see others use that genuine pain for malicious and financial reasons”.
There are recent cases where kids have lost their long term placements because someone else living elsewhere makes allegations. The children removed may have been in their placement for years. We’ve also heard of a case where a girl in care confessed to making false allegations and wanted the charges against the carer dropped. She had done it a few times before. This time her social worker and the SA police wouldn’t believe her and proceeded with taking the carer to trial. That girl suicided when the trial started. How sad is that? It’s good the Coroner is investigating”.
Membership of Foster Proud is free and open to those who are or have been in foster care or government residential care. Registered carers and residential care workers can also join. Donations can be accepted once we have a bank account. Contact Ben Dunne on 0439 863 392 (after 5pm).
End..
References:
1 Hansard: 8 December 2004
2 Create Foundation letter dated 16 July 2004 to Special Investigation Unit manager Steve Edgington
3 See ‘Proposal for the Establishment of a Special Investigation Unit’, Department of Human Services (now DFC), February 2003, and also minutes of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Alternative Care dated 14 July 2004.
4 See Hansard 8 December 2004 and Create Foundation letter dated 16 July 2004 to Steve Edgington, DFC Special Investigation Unit
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 17th February 2005
A new Support Group has set up in Australia. Their aim is to challenge the negative stereotypes which have arisen in Australia of children who are (where) in care following revelations of abuse in foster care.
WHO WE ARE
At a time of child abuse panic, Foster Proud has been established this year by a group of over 60 young people from the South Australian care system. Our membership includes those who are or have been in foster care, residential care and kinship care and as the word spreads, so is our membership growing. Foster Proud has been based on the Irish organisation Let Our Voves Emerge (L.O.V.E.)
Foster Proud is about being proud of foster care. Our members have in common a genuine desire to challenge the negative stereotypes promoted by politicians about children and young people in care and their carers.
Unlike other foster care action groups, our membership also includes biological parents of those in care, registered foster carers, residential care workers, community leaders, alternative care workers and Aboriginal elders.
Independent of government funding, Foster Proud will provide a brave and accurate voice about problems with the care system. By raising public awareness and concern, the government might get serious about making positive changes. We will raise issues so that government work together with children in care organisations like the Create Foundation to improve things.
We have a big agenda! It includes:
- Government respect for us, our privacy and our rights.
- The wrong use of foster care for political point scoring.
- Improved social worker training about foster care - maybe they should do foster care themselves for a year or two to become qualified to work with us.
- The government not just dropping us when we turn 18 and leave care. Good parents don’t do that. We need leaving care supports like in NSW. They get it til they turn 25.
- Proper funding for the Create Foundation and Carer groups to work with the government better.
- The return of funding for an independent advocate and support worker for foster carers.
- The ongoing loss of good foster carers due to fear of false allegations.
- Stopping the high numbers of kids being placed in motels and caravans because lack of carers.
- Alleged abuse in care investigations:
-
big problems with the new DFC Special Investigation Unit and its methods, including reports of secret investigations. They are scaring good carers and potential carers away.
– serious abuse in care investigations should be done by the police and not the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) so the SIU can do theirs much faster. Why are the SIU employing retired Police?
-
Contradictions - social workers never believe us if we get into trouble with the police. But they always believe us when we say abuse. Why the difference?
-
Stopping SIU repeating interviews of child victims or witnesses - it hurts us - retraumatises us.
-
Conducting investigations which look for the truth and not made up stories.
-
Letting kids have an independent observer or support person when interviewed by the SIU. The police let us.
-
Not allowing investigators to yell at kids, force them to sign statements or giving their name to other kids. Stop them asking the same questions again and again and making us feel like liars. We have a right to be interviewed by qualified people and not by untrained or under trained and inexperienced investigators.
-
Not setting up foster children and young people to make false claims to get attention and compensation or please investigators - we are the ones that get in really big trouble if caught.
-
Reducing carer paranoia about false allegations so that foster kids can live a normal family life and not one of carer fear and no trust.
-
Reducing social worker paranoia about abuse allegations so we can do things other kids do without a huge fuss and lots of suspicion.
-
Stop kids being ripped out of their long term placements when someone else makes dodgy allegations. Why do we have to suffer - new placements, schools, problems and wanting to be where we have belonged?
-
Much faster investigations are needed -we want to get on with our lives.
-
Having sensible decision making. Is the government trying to protect us or win votes? It doesn’t seem to be interested unless there are votes in it.
-
Making sure real victims of child abuse in care get help. With all the allegations going on (against more than 200 carers each year) the real victims get hidden by the false victim claims.
End...
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on the 17th February 2005
Last Thursday on the Highlands and Islands news, I heard that Moray Council have issued letters to parents and pupils warning of the consequences of making false allegations against teachers after the allegations against two teachers in the area were found to be unfounded. It was only mentioned on one news broadcast but I was very pleased to hear this.
Submitted by Penny. Many Thanks
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 17th February 2005
F.A.C.T. members will already be aware of Tim Field's excellent web site Bullying on Line. What they may not be familiar with is his advice on how best to respond to an employer who persists in making false allegations, or uses false allegations to bully them. He has a whole section on his web site devoted to this.
It includes such gems as:-
"Your criticisms are based on trivia; choosing to focus obsessively on trivia reveals unsound judgement and is one of the ways bullies identify and reveal themselves."" Your criticisms and allegations are a projection of your own failings and shortcomings. I ask you not to project them on to me."When responding to specious (plausibly deceptive) criticisms and allegations, under no circumstances be deceived into explaining, justifying, elaborating or apologising - each of these responses accords the criticism or allegation a validity which it does not have. Always put the onus on the bully to provide substantive and quantifiable evidence to justify his or her accusation.
If you've been subjected to fabricated or distorted criticisms or allegations or are facing unwarranted disciplinary action you can respond in writing:
"On [date] you made the following criticism/allegation against me which you are now seeking to use as the basis for imposing a verbal/written warning: [Include details of allegation here]. I now ask you to provide me in writing within seven days with substantive and quantifiable evidence in support of your criticism/allegation." When no written substantiation is provided, write again: On [date] you [reiterate your previous letter]. I note that you have chosen to not substantiate your criticism/allegation as requested. I now ask you again to provide me in writing, within 48 hours, with substantive and quantifiable evidence in support of your criticism/allegation. When no written reply is received, write again:"On [date] you [reiterate both previous letters] I now ask you to withdraw your criticism/allegation and provide me with evidence in writing that you have done so. I remind you that making allegations and refusing to substantiate them in writing is a form of harassment. Such harassment prevents myself and others from fulfilling our contractual duties and legally binding obligations."If you're subjected to this tactic again at a later date, include in your first letter a reminder of the previous occasion (remember, it's the patterns of behaviour that reveal bullying)"I note that you have chosen to make another trivial, specious and insubstantive criticism/allegation about me. I remind you of our correspondence of [date] when you were unable and unwilling to substantiate your criticism/allegation. I remind you that in my letter of [date] I pointed out that making unfounded, misrepresented or fabricated criticisms/allegations and refusing to substantiate them in writing is a form of harassment. I am advised that the UK Department of Trade and Industry recommend that the Protection from Harassment Act (1996) be used in such circumstances. Furthermore you are causing the employer to incur vicarious liability for your unacceptable behaviour."Be alert to the criticism or allegation changing or being withdrawn as you challenge it. Note any changes and point them out in writing, asking for an explanation as to why they have changed in response to you asking for substantive evidence.
For more information refer action to be taken against workplace bullies. Its well worth looking at.
This item first appeared on the FACT website on the 24th February 2005
Despite the very good work undertaken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) most independent observers accept that its hands are tied by the stautory requirement that they can only refer cases to the Court of Appeal if there is a 'real possibility' that the case will be overturned. A fairer test would be that referrals should be made when there is an 'arguable case that there is a miscarriage of justice'
If you are planning to lobby your MP you might like to add this suggestion to your list.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 17th February 2005
The closing date for submitting comments regarding the Government's proposal for dealing with allegations in schools has passed. F.A.C.T. have submitted a response which is available from the secretary. The response deals with specific questions set out in the Government's response form. In summary F.A.C.T's position is:-
F.A.C.T. appreciates being consulted on these matters. In general F.A.C.T. welcomes the Governments recommendations but with some reservations. We accept that the Government have a difficult balancing act to achieve - that of safeguarding the welfare of children, protecting the rights of staff, and minimising the disruption caused to other children and school staff.
F.A.C.T. accepts that on occasion carers and teachers sometimes abuse children. All we ask is that the Government (and others) accept that children (whether as young people or later in life as adults) sometimes make exaggerated, false or indeed malicious complaints of abuse, and that carers and teachers are especially vulnerable to such complaints. We believe there should be both zero tolerance of abuse AND zero tolerance of false accusations in schools and care homes. We believe more action needs to be taken by the Government, and by LEA’s/Governing bodies (and others) to achieve this.
Whilst we support the need for speedier outcomes the important issue is not one of time but of justice. Above all else, those accused want their cases to be fully and competently investigated. There is considerable evidence that this does not happen. Indeed F.A.C.T. has identified a worrying trend in that many of those LEA’s/LA’s who have adopted a speedier response have done so at the expense of the quality of their investigation. This serves no ones interests.
F.A.C.T. welcomes the Government’s decision to re-examine the arrangements for dealing with allegations against teachers and other staff. We recognise that all allegations made against staff of what ever position or rank MUST be fully investigated. We believe that the process of investigation should be uniformly applied to all settings but recognise that different ‘contractual’ situations may require different arrangements. Everyone has the right to defend themselves against any allegations that have been made against them, and the right to a fair and impartial hearing. We recognise that not everyone’s situation is the same, or will necessarily follow the same route or will lead to the same outcome. For example complaints made about a school governor, or a head teacher, a teacher, or ancillary worker may need to be treated differently simply to ensure public confidence in the investigation. Similarly complaints which fall short of alleged abuse or which do not warrant police involvement, or raise child protection concerns may need to be treated differently to others. The important thing is to have an agreed procedure and a system which both parties - those making the complaints AND those defending the complaints, have confidence in. At the moment the system of investigation (and adjudication) generally fails to meet this test.
For the reasons stated previously we caution against the use of performance targets which are related to time scales. We would much prefer a system whereby the person overseeing the investigation has the power to require the parties to complete certain tasks by certain dates - depending on the complexity of the investigation. Obviously it would, for example, be necessary to make allowances for the fact that historical allegations take much longer to investigate than other cases, and require more time in order to prepare ones defence to such allegations.
In our view the Government’s proposals do not go far enough. This initiative has a heavy slant towards child protection sometimes at the expense of an individual’s right to natural justice. We believe anonymity should be guaranteed up to the point of conviction, and should apply to all cases of alleged abuse and not just sexual abuse. We believe our view is consistent with the fact that publicity is more likely than not to lead to a miscarriage of justice, and is consistent with the general principle that a persons is innocent until proven guilty.
We are concerned that the proposed threshold for publicity – that of being charged with an offence is inadequate. If implemented all it would do is result in changing behaviour by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service. We are concerned charges might be brought more for tactical reasons, and in cases where that other wise might not be considered.
F.A.C.T. has been involved in some very tragic cases in which individuals accused of abuse have taken their life. In every case a lack of support and understanding from their employers has been identified as a contributory factor in these deaths. We therefore suggest the Government give greater emphasis to the need for employers to provide ongoing support to the accused throughout the investigative process.
We are concerned that there is a serious crisis of confidence emerging in the child protection system. Investigative standards are poor. Paradoxically child protection social workers are too concerned with agency protection than the pursuit of truth. We see no reason why child protection agencies cannot admit to the fact that sometimes they get things seriously wrong, and that sometimes children (and adults) are minded to make false allegations.
Far too often there is an over-riding presumption of guilt and a great reluctance to accept the need for a systematic, evidential based approach to enquiry. People who have been falsely accused have a right to be cleared and unless this need is recognised local authorities and others will continue to be involved in defending their actions for long periods of time and at great expense. F.A.C.T. is concerned that in wanting to address the problem of false allegations (which we believe the Government has seriously under-estimated) they run the risk that in making the system more efficient (in terms of speeding up the process) they increase the likelihood that justice will miscarry. More disturbingly, speeding up the process may well result in both sides having insufficient time to present their cases thereby increasing the likelihood that genuine abusers will not be caught and will remain free.
This is a summary of a much more detailed response. Grateful thanks are due to those members who offered suggestions for inclusion in our submission. If any FACT member would like to see the full submission please contact the secretary. 02920 777499
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 24th February 2005
Commenting on NASUWT's formal response to the DfES consultation on Proposals for Dealing with Allegations against Staff, which closes on 10 February 2005, Chris Keates, General Secretary of NASUWT, the largest union representing teachers and headteachers throughout the UK, said:
"These proposals reflect the vigorous representations made by NASUWT to the Government.
"They build on the commitment given in the DfES Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners published in July last year and I warmly welcome them.
"The cases NASUWT submitted for joint critical review between the Union and DfES officials to inform the development of the proposals highlighted the inadequacy and injustice of the current system.
"The consultation document builds upon that joint work and addresses many of the concerns NASUWT identified.
"Although the measures suggested do not include a statutory right to anonymity for those against whom an allegation is made, the Association of Chief of Police Officers' guidance makes it absolutely clear that anonymity up to the point of charge must be preserved.
"This is a very important development. It has the potential to be highly effective when combined with the new procedure to identify, in a matter of days, rather than months or years, whether there is any substance to an allegation.
"Experience from NASUWT casework has demonstrated that the longer a case is under investigation the more likely it is to attract media attention.
"NASUWT will monitor closely the impact of proposals once they are implemented fully and welcomes the stated intention of the Government to do likewise.
"NASUWT has suggested in its response to the consultation a number of areas where the proposals can be strengthened, but overall they represent a major step forward in striking the right balance between protecting teachers and their families from the trauma and devastation of false, malicious and exaggerated allegations to which all those who work with children are so vulnerable and ensuring that children are protected from abuse.
"These proposals are another excellent example of the benefits which can be secured not only for our members but for teachers in general through working in social partnership with the Government.
"As these proposals regrettably relate only to teachers in England, NASUWT will press, through the appropriate channels, for their implementation in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland where teachers are equally vulnerable."
Whilst F.A.C.T. agrees with much of the above we do not support plans for shortened timescales for completing investigations. In F.A.C.T's experience the main problem with investigations is one of investigative competence and the application of rules of natural justice. Reducing the time allowed for investigations, particularly in respect of historical investigations is likely, in our view, to increase the risk of justice miscarrying.
This item first appeared on the F.A.C.T. website on 24th February 2005
Several F.A.C.T. members have asked for the contact details of the relevant trades unions which serves the Education and Social Services/Local Government areas.
The list below shows the contact details for the main headquarters. Detail of local offices can usually be found on national
Education
Sally Hunt
General Secretary
Association of University Teachers
Egmont House
25/31 Tavistock Place
London WC1 9UT
Email
Jean Gemmel
General Secretary
Professional Association of Teachers (Eng)
2 St James Court
Friar Gate
Derby
DE1 1BT
Email
Society of Schoolmasters and School Mistresses
Kings School
Canterbury
CT1 2ES
National Assoc of Teachers in Further & Higher Education (Eng)
27 Britannia Street
London
WC1X 9UP
Email
Secondary Heads Association
130 Regent Road
Leicester
LE1 7PG
Email
Doug McAvoy
General Secretary
National Union of Teachers
Hamilton House
Mabledon Place
London
WC1 9BD
Email
Web
National Association of Schoolmasters & Union of Women Teachers NASUWT
Hillscourt Education Centre
Rose Hill
Rednall
Birmingham
B45 8RS
Email
National Association of Headteachers
1 Heath Square
Boltro Road
Haywards Heath
RH16 1BL
Email
Social Work and Local Government
British Union of Social Work Employees (BUSWE)
BUSWE House
208 Middleton Road
Manchester
M8 4NA
Email
GMB
National Office
22/24 Worple Road
London
SW19 4DD
Email
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9AJ
Email See web site for specific locality
Professional Associations
British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
16 Kent Street
Birmingham
B5 6RD
Email
Fostering Network (formerly National Foster Care Association)
87 Blackfriars Road
London
SE1 8HA
Email
General Teaching Council (Eng)
Whittington House
19-30 Alfred Place
London
WC1E 7EA
Email
National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO)
3-4 Chivalry Road
London
email info@napo.org.uk
Web http://www.napo.org.uk/