One that didn't come out right

Well the weekend was fine, until about 9pm on Sunday, at which point we were suddenly knee deep in vomit. The little man seems to have picked up some tummy bug and was blowing chunks constantly throughout the night. I worked from home on Monday to allow me to take him to see the doctor. They gave him some medicine and told us to bring him back in a couple of days if he isn't better. He did seem better yesterday. He slept well, though he still seems tired, and he had some breakfast. This morning he was grumpy.

The EU has decided to drop legislation that governs the size and shape of 26 types of fruit and vegetables that can be sold within the union. It is estimated that currently some 20% of produce from Europe is discarded because it does not comply with marketing standards laid down by the commission. In some cases this is thought to raise the price of produce by as much as 40%.

So, the European taxpayer has paid for the legislators to come up with the regulations in the first place, and are now paying again for them to remove it. They have also had to pay increased prices for produce in the shops as a direct result of the legislation, and they pay once again for the disposal of produce that can't be sold. I'd like some comment here from people outside the EU. Read this article from the Telegraph. It reads like a spoof April Fool piece, but it's quite genuine. Really, I'd like to know what Americans and Australians think, and anyone else from outside the EU.

There are two big stories in the news today that I want to compare. The first is the story of 13-year-old Hannah Jones. Hannah is terminally ill. Her heart was damaged when she was treated for childhood leukaemia. Apparently only a heart transplant would prolong her life, but she has decided that she doesn't want to have the operation. Instead she wants to spend the rest of her life with her family. Hannah's decision to refuse treatment resulted in the authorities initiating legal action. That action has since been dropped.

The second story concerns the death of "baby B", who died at the age of 17 months after sustained abuse at the hands of his mother, her lover, and a lodger at their home in London. The local authorities made 60 visits to the home of baby B, and the child was even taken into care for a short while. Eventually the child died from multiple injuries including a broken spine, broken limbs, broken ribs, severed fingertip, and much more. Read about it here.

As I said, I want to compare these stories. In the case of Hannah Jones, it seems very clear to me that the authorities meddled in a situation which simply didn't concern them. It's worth mentioning that in fact it was a doctor that first alerted the child protection services to the issue. It did appear at one point as though Hannah would be taken from her family and put into care if her family failed to bring her to the hospital for treatment. I can't see how the authorities can justify their involvement. Their argument is that they believed the parents were preventing the child from having treatment against her will. I'd still suggest that the authorities were less qualified than the parents of the child to make the decision.

The second story is exactly the opposite. The authorities didn't get involved when they clearly should have. A baby was suffering from horrifying abuse, and the visiting social workers clearly knew he was in danger, but didn't remove him. This mistake cost the life of the child.

My base instinct is always to argue against state interference. In the Hannah Jones case, the state had no business insisting the young woman had treatment, and some heartache could have been avoided if they had stayed away. It's not so clear cut in the case of baby B however. Could one argue that the state should have stayed out of that situation? Well they were completely ineffective. The outcome would have been the same with or without the involvement of the state.

What really sickens me is the attitude of the chairman of the Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board:

Sharon Shoesmith insisted no one would be sacked: "This was a family that needed, and was given, extensive help and support."

"The very sad fact is that we can't stop people who are determined to kill children. I am satisfied that the action that should have been taken was taken."

Sharon Shoesmith is clearly more concerned about her job than the death of a child.