Racial and Gender Discrimination

The request was refused by Haringey Borough Council.

Alastair Patterson

Dear Haringey Borough Council,

1. Haringey currently pursues a policy of gender and racial discrimination in its provision of secondary intervention services to children and families for preventing child neglect and abuse. Haringey's long standing child protection failures are a direct consequence of this policy of gender and racial discrimination.

2. The government has recognised the institutional racism, sexism and homophobia in local authority children's services. The failure of secondary early intervention was the principle term of reference of the recent Munro Review of Child Protection[1].

3. Haringey only provides secondary intervention services for preventing child neglect and abuse to working women and non African heritage ethnic minorities. This preferential provision is made through the educational welfare service by the health visiting service in the early years and then the schools.

4. The discriminatory policy is hidden in the children protection system with fabrications of child abuse and phony child welfare concerns. The recent AB ~v~ CD case and evidence published Select Committee on Education[2. These describe a routine experience in Haringey.

5. Pitifully inadequate individuals, such as Ms Sylvia Chew, are naturally attracted to using children as instruments of violence against their families. Motivated by gender hate, they relish the opportunity and delight in so doing[3].

6. Secondary intervention services are specified at the "CAF Threshold" of "multiple needs"[4]. At this threshold, the health visiting service or education welfare service conduct a "CAF Assessment" to integrate all relevant provision to children and families by the authorities mentioned in section 11(1) Children Act 2004 on a case by case basis. (At present only for working women and non African heritage ethnic minorities).

7. This policy of gender discrimination is apparent in Haringey's treatment of domestic violence. Domestic violence is specified at the CAF Threshold of multiple needs. However, male survivors with children are treated at the CAF Threshold of single needs, refused a CAF Assessment, and their children's needs ignored.

8. The damaging consequences on children of female perpetrated domestic violence is not only ignored, women are actively encouraged to use children as instruments of domestic violence against their partners as a means of Haringey's perpetuation of gender hate abuse.

9. REQUEST : please can you supply all recorded information and documentation, or reference to the same, :
a) specifying Haringey's treatment of domestic violence within a CAF Assessment at the CAF Threshold of multiple needs;

b) the information to be supplied to a level of detail that, on a case by case basis, will ensure that Haringey meets its stated promise to "engage in anti-discriminatory practice" and "work with other agencies, including child protection agencies" through the CAF Assessment[5].

Yours faithfully,

Alastair Patterson

[1] Munro Review of Child Protection, 5.25 - 5.30 Final Report
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
[2] AB ~v~ CD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...
Evidence published by the Common Select Committe on Education
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

[3]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
[4] CAF Thresholds, domestic violence multiple needs
http://www.sunderlandchildrenstrust.org....
[5]Hearthstone : supporting victims of domestic violence
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/hearthstone_-...

Dyos Sue, Haringey Borough Council

Dear Mr Patterson,
 
Freedom of Information Request, our reference:  LBH/1925113
 
Thank you for your request for information dated 10 June 2013 in which you
asked for:
 
“all recorded information and documentation, or reference to the same,
specifying Haringey's treatment of domestic violence within a CAF
Assessment at the CAF Threshold of multiple needs”
 
Having reviewed your request we consider that it is one which can be
classified as a vexatious request.  Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of
Information Act allows an authority to not respond to a request for
information if it is considered vexatious.  
 
In order to make this decision I have referred to guidance issued from the
Information Commissioner, which is that a request can be considered as
vexatious after considering a number of different indicators, including:
 

* Abusive or aggressive language

The tone or language of the requester’s correspondence goes beyond the
level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should
reasonably expect to receive.

* Unreasonable persistence

The requester is attempting to reopen an issue which has already been
comprehensively addressed by the public authority, or otherwise subjected
to some form of independent scrutiny.

* Unfounded accusations

The request makes completely unsubstantiated accusations against the
public authority or specific employees.

* Frequent or overlapping requests

The requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or
sends in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity
to address their earlier enquiries.
 
I consider your request meets these indicators.  The tone of your email
dated 9 June is accusatory and makes  abusive statements about Haringey
Council.  Whilst we accept we do receive criticism and are open to
learning from past errors, the tone and statements made in your email,
which has been made in a public form of correspondence via an open website
is unnecessary.  Council officers should not have to put up with such
statements as:
 
“women are actively encouraged to use children as instruments of domestic
violence against their partners as a means of Haringey's perpetuation of
gender hate abuse”.
 
This is not a decision which we make lightly and is informed not only from
the indicators above but also by the number of similar requests you have
submitted and the context and history of your correspondence with Haringey
Council.
You have been corresponding with us for some years, and we have responded
to a complaint from you relating to the Children’s Service as well as
various FOI requests.  We consider that this continued interest and
antagonism towards our Childrens’ Services is ultimately related to your
own experiences and is an unreasonably persistent approach.
 
This letter is therefore a Refusal Notice to provide the information
requested.
 
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced guidance for wording a
request which may assist you in making a request without it being
considered as vexatious.   You can view the relevant section, ‘How should
I word my request to get the best result?’, on the How to access
information from a public body page of their website:
[1]http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/off...
 
If you have any further queries, or are unhappy with how we have dealt
with your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact the
Feedback and Information Team as below. (Please note you should do this
within two months of receiving this response.)   
 
Feedback and Information Team
River Park House
225 High Road
N22 8HQ
Telephone: 020 8489 2550
Email: [2][email address]
 
 
You may also complain to the Information Commissioner’s office, who may be
able to help you.  However they would normally expect the local authority
to have undertaken a complaint investigation or Internal Review of the
request before they will accept the referral. 
You can contact the Commissioner at:
 
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Email: [3][email address]
Website: [4]www.ico.org.uk
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Sue Dyos | Feedback Team Leader | Haringey Council | Feedback &
Information Governance Team | 020 8489 2550
 
 
 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/off...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Alastair Patterson

Dear Dyos Sue,

Yawn, yawn.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Patterson

Geoffrey Salter left an annotation ()

Typical type of action by council not wishing to respond when in the wrong. The trouble is that the Health Care Professional Council are not interested in criticsm of their members - I referred a case where the social worker failed to see me in carrying out her Initial Assessment where the childrens safeguarding procedures state that the parents will be seen not one but both. She then lied about the timeline of the case, failed to complete paperwork fully. She also sent a letter to the court on 4 June 2009 stating that in the opinion of the refuge i posed a risk to other residents - this was never asked for and her department had provided me with the address 3 weeks earlier!! The HCPC stated as the case was historic they were not pursuing my coimplaint. No wonder there is such an outcry over social services when the council do nothing the professional body do nothing!!

butlincat left an annotation ()

Typical response from this council, to hide the evidence.

Opal Koboi left an annotation ()

With hard figures, I cannot confirm institutional racism or homophobia by Haringey Borough Council. However, from figures published in response to a previous Freedom Of Information request made on Sat 12 Jul 2012, I am unfortunately able to confirm institutional ageism, sexism and transphobia.

Specifically, from https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d... , Haringey Borough Council funded 31 domestic refuge places for females, zero places for males over 12 years old and zero places for people of indeterminate gender.

A follow-up made on Wed 14 Dec 2016 and due by Tue 17 Jan 2017 is not expected to show improvement. See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d... for more details.

If you wish to obtain hard figures regarding racism among Haringey Social Workers, you may wish to replicate a request made to Merton Borough Council which clearly showed that Irish and mixed race Social Workers were paid less. See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a... for further details.