Hurrah! The awkward squad has found its voice on YouTube. See NGO luminaries plus top academics talking here about ContactPoint and here about eCAF, also this one called “Lost in the system” with Shami Chakrabarti. Terri Dowty says spending money on these systems while children’s services are so stretched is like saying
I’m sorry you haven’t got new shoes but I need this new laptop
Brought to us by Archrights.
So; let’s hear the case _for_ these developments please. Do we need another DebateMap?
Published by William Heath on 20/01/08 at 7:20pm
Next entry: Never too late to get to the right starting point
Previous entry: Privacy International says move to Greece
This page has been viewed 508568 times
Entries: 1625 | Comments: 2662 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 10/08/2008 09:58 am
Most Recent Comment: 10/07/2008 12:14 am
Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 43
Most recent visitor: 10/08/2008 12:04 pm
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm
I’m certainly not going to defend these developments (though I wouldn’t condemn them outright, either). But I hope the debate can be conducted with a little more sophistication than Terri Dowty’s emotionally-loaded false dichotomy.
As I recall, ContactPoint arose as a response to the tragedy of Victoria Climbie, who was repeatedly failed by caring, committed professionals (with or without laptops) who seemed unable to talk to each other. And yes, like anything else, ContactPoint will cost money from a finite pot to build. So is it fair for me to ask “how many cases like Victoria Climbie’s are acceptable to ensure that new shoes are available on demand?”?.
It’s easy to criticise initiatives. Let’s give more visibility to practical alternatives that will deliver real benefits to the children that need them. Because muddling on in the same old “caring” way isn’t really an option, is it?
Reply by Don Metcalfe on 01/21/08 at 3:33 pm
Isn’t that what Terri Dowty is suggesting? I don’t believe Dowty, or indeed any other critic of Government policy, is against initiatives in principle. That would be a very unreasonable position to hold.
What critics are concerned about is whether ContactPoint (for example) is an appropriate solution to the ‘problems’ that the Government has identified. I put that word in scare quotes because, as the Office of Government Commerce suggests, the Government is not particularly good at identifying problems (or indeed appropriate solutions) - some proposed solutions could even be counterproductive.
Climbié was failed in many ways and not just because people or organisations failed to talk to each other, or were unable to share information electronically. Indeed the inquiry identified a vast number of problems throughout all the organisations she had contact with, some being down to plain old boring incompetence or a lack of resources.
The problem is that the Government proposes silver bullets. Yet the silver bullet mentality is one of the most common reasons for project failure.
Unfortunately you cannot participate in a debate with the Government unless you first accept its terms. For example, “engage with us on running one giant database” rather than “should we run one giant database”.
I have yet to make time to read the FIPR report on chidren’s databases (1.16 Mb PDF) but it may be of interest to you.
Reply by ukliberty on 01/23/08 at 7:58 pm
OK - I think we need a DEBATEMAP on childrens’ databases. David is up for it, indeed he’s already started checking out the arguments....watch this space, and stand by to chip in!!
Reply by on 01/23/08 at 8:47 pm