The horrific Edlington case shows the normal form of Britain’s social-care secrecy reversed. If ever a system needed reform and proper police investigation, this is it.

Those familiar with George Orwell’s novel 1984 will recall the Ministry names in his future-horror. All were the cynical opposite of reality – the Ministry of Truth, for example, where the hero Winston Smith worked at slipping lies into history in order to rearrange the past.
Most towns now have a Safeguarding Children Board (SCB). Their job much of the time is to safeguard the reputation of social workers who screw up. In this endeavour, they are knowingly assisted by the Family Courts which, in turn, protect their own kind.
Both can, effectively, refuse to release information to anyone from the Monarch downwards. (See the nby archive for more background under ‘The Care Home Files’)

Last year, the Slogger was prevented from revealing a disgraceful cover-up in Plymouth by an arbitrary gagging order. The order was issued by a senior judge, but in the Edlington case – astonishingly – this time Doncaster SCB refused to release a report to the judge. The BBC has obtained a copy, and describes it as revealing “very serious shortcomings and a failure to comply with legal duties”.
I’m pleased to see this intransigence, because it raises public awareness of the evil being hidden from view in the legal-care stitch-up that is Britain’s care system. As we revealed on nby last year, Harriet Harman and Ed Balls have been long on good intentions in this field – but short on action.
A pivotal organisation for childcare in Britain is the NSPCC. Lord Mandelson (who has never married)is one of its leading patrons. When it comes to secrecy the two are well-matched, for Mandy hides all his financial ‘affairs’ behind a blind trust. His Lordship did however campaign actively for the of age of homosexual consent to be lowered to sixteen. And as long ago as 2002, documents that the NSPCC submitted to the public inquiry into Victoria Climbie’s death (in guess where? Haringey) were apparently changed to put its conduct in a better light. Radio 4’s Today programme revealed how the NSPCC’s own staff did next to nothing when Haringey social services referred eight-year-old Victoria to an NSPCC family centre in north London.

Perhaps little surprise then that this week, in the light of Edlington,the NSPCC trotted out the never-ending mantra: ‘Full reports should not be made public as sensitive information must be kept confidential to protect vulnerable children’.
This excuse is wearing very thin indeed: how hard would it be to release documents and hold trials while blanking out the victim’s name?

We do not need twelve million innocent people to be vetted and barred: we need the police and informants to root out criminal perversion and covered-up incompetence in the judicial and childcare systems once and for all.
In the meantime, Ministers doing their jobs as opposed to tweeting from trains would be a good start.