Contents:
This patchwork quilt of legislation could end up being alarmingly patchy. This also paves the way to cut out principal social workers, even though this role is only three years old.
This would risk further undermining the sensible developments shaped by the Social Work Task Force — the role was one of its key recommendations after the death of Baby P. Abundant examples can be found of local authorities being innovative within current legislation: However, despite the rhetoric of reducing the demands and requirements of legislation and government, the DfE recently announced it is increasing the amount of data that councils must collect and report on early years pdf and children in need services pdf.
So beware those who say that giving exceptional powers over the social work profession to one politician is about generating creativity and innovation. Instead, recognise that the rewriting of legislation and resetting of rights and responsibilities without public debate or parliamentary scrutiny would be undertaken in the context of austerity and cuts and within what at this time — as yet not reversed by the new prime minister — is a continuing agenda of generating a marketplace for social work and child protection.
Join the Social Care Network to read more pieces like this. Follow us on Twitter GdnSocialCare and like us on Facebook to keep up with the latest social care news and views.
Handing the reins to the Department for Education This is the context in which the new children and social work bill pdf needs to be read. Cuts drive could result in protection framework being thrown out These examples are about cutting services and responsibilities, not innovation. Topics Social Care Network. Order by newest oldest recommendations. Show 25 25 50 All.
Threads collapsed expanded unthreaded. Loading comments… Trouble loading? Cronyism; Wall Street, banks, automotive bailouts; growing power of lobbyists; are rights without responsibilities. In addition, we have the largest number in our history of people illegally entering, living and benefiting from both our freedoms and our earned entitlements.
A society should not permit people, business and powerful entities the right to take from their society that which appeals to, and benefits them, while negating the responsibilities attached to them. We are living with, and subject to, a bought and paid for Wall Street government. Bailouts for corruption and financially irresponsible business practices have resulted in historical debt for a nation and generations to come. This lack of accountability followed by on-going enabling is a major national disgrace.
Responsibility would dictate high rollers liquidate their assets and bail themselves out and for government to reign in unscrupulous predatory lenders by regulating interest rates for homeowners. People benefiting from illegally living here continues. Those in favor of this population receiving equal rights say we need to provide for them and treat them in a humane manner.
Those not in favor say since they came here illegally they do not have the same right to government programs paid for by taxpayers to be among a humane manner. The Pursuit of Happyness is a movie about the struggles of self-made millionaire Chris Gardner who made his fortune in the stock market.
Then, create clearly defined roles and let them dive into their passions. These sort of value judgments, inherent in the practical application of human rights whether we agree with them or not , undermine their "universality". I no longer do. Now we're grown-ups we have a responsibility to make those kind of judgments. Top performers are often categorized as those who accomplish the most. The main focus is Gardners' complete acceptance of responsibility for owning where he was and where he wanted to go in his life. Abundant examples can be found of local authorities being innovative within current legislation:
The main focus is Gardners' complete acceptance of responsibility for owning where he was and where he wanted to go in his life. He owned his life and his responsibility to change it by reflecting on the word "pursuit" as written by Thomas Jefferson in our Bill of Rights. Both men understood the true meaning of pursuit. It is not a guarantee of happiness but an opportunity to pursue it.
A nation solely focused on rights while not equally focusing on responsibilities cannot survive. America is destroying itself by allowing rights without responsibilities. Do you see the integrity regarding rights and responsibilities of this nation in balance or imbalanced?
Is America today demanding happiness or pursuing it in the manner of Gardner?