| More madness 13:06 - May 7 with 2891 views | Boundy |
Can 3 year old children be racist , well according to the fools in cardiff they can be .
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |  |
| More madness on 10:20 - May 8 with 660 views | onehunglow |
| More madness on 08:35 - May 8 by AnotherJohn |
"It's guidance". This makes it seem that guidance is discretional, but in a modern state there is a range of guidance, some of it binding and likely to be considered in judicial review cases if it is not followed. In much of public law, primary legislation is translated into action via official guidance and then into operational guidelines within affected organisations. It seems to me that in the tool-kit case, which applies to organisations of various kinds, the status of the guidance isn't entirely clear, but the authors suggest that it will be considered in CIW inspections and that there may be some statutory basis in section 16 of the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act, 2014. There is no equivalent of section 16 in England.
https://www.lukeclements.co.uk
So I think the tool-kit is intended to be a bit more than advice that organisations can take or leave. [Post edited 8 May 9:59]
|
Guidance as to what and where though
We are talking toddlers here
We are actually looking to ram adult thought process crosses into children
To make them see the world as we do
It’s not unlike religious indoctrination | |
| |
| More madness on 11:13 - May 8 with 629 views | Gwyn737 |
| More madness on 08:35 - May 8 by AnotherJohn |
"It's guidance". This makes it seem that guidance is discretional, but in a modern state there is a range of guidance, some of it binding and likely to be considered in judicial review cases if it is not followed. In much of public law, primary legislation is translated into action via official guidance and then into operational guidelines within affected organisations. It seems to me that in the tool-kit case, which applies to organisations of various kinds, the status of the guidance isn't entirely clear, but the authors suggest that it will be considered in CIW inspections and that there may be some statutory basis in section 16 of the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act, 2014. There is no equivalent of section 16 in England.
https://www.lukeclements.co.uk
So I think the tool-kit is intended to be a bit more than advice that organisations can take or leave. [Post edited 8 May 9:59]
|
There will be bits in it that are statutory - the duty to report for example, but thats a by-product.
Inspoections will inspect the statutory and look at whether practice reflects the inspection framework as opposed to the guidence.
I still the the fact that it's be reporteds in the way it was was really in bad faith. | | | |
| More madness on 14:04 - May 8 with 580 views | AnotherJohn |
| More madness on 11:13 - May 8 by Gwyn737 |
There will be bits in it that are statutory - the duty to report for example, but thats a by-product.
Inspoections will inspect the statutory and look at whether practice reflects the inspection framework as opposed to the guidence.
I still the the fact that it's be reporteds in the way it was was really in bad faith. |
I think that is a misunderstanding of how things work. The legislation (the relevant statute) doesn’t usually contain section by section provisions that the Welsh regulators in the social care and health sectors (CIW and HIW) can use to design a point by point check in their inspections. Rather statutory provisions, regulations, guidance and policy are woven together to develop an inspection template or framework. CIW inspects childcare and play services looking at the domains of Well-being, Care and Development, Environment and Leadership and Management. It uses a structured assessment approach based on SOFI2 (Short Observational Framework for Inspection v2). CIW and HIW are cooperating to develop similar approaches that support the WG’s equality and inclusion policies.
“Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW) and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) are the independent inspectorates and regulators of healthcare, social care, and childcare in Wales. Through our work, we take action to improve the quality and safety of services for the well-being of the people of Wales. HIW and CIW have collectively come together, to pool our experience and knowledge, to work on a joint strategy which supports both organisations.
(…)
As departments within Welsh Government, we are guided and work towards supporting the delivery of the Welsh Government’s Strategic Equality Plan and Equality Objectives 2024 - 2028 under the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011, and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). The joint strategy will complement Welsh Government’s equality plans, and aims to align and make connections between existing plans (such as the Anti-Racist Action Plan for Wales and LGBTQ+ Action Plan for Wales for example) amplifying the intersectionality of people’s lives and experiences.”
https://www.hiw.org.uk/joint-e
So compliance with aspects of the Anti-Racist Action Plan might well figure in inspection reports, and unfavourable reports have negative consequences for organisations. | | | |
| More madness on 14:53 - May 8 with 555 views | Gwyn737 |
| More madness on 14:04 - May 8 by AnotherJohn |
I think that is a misunderstanding of how things work. The legislation (the relevant statute) doesn’t usually contain section by section provisions that the Welsh regulators in the social care and health sectors (CIW and HIW) can use to design a point by point check in their inspections. Rather statutory provisions, regulations, guidance and policy are woven together to develop an inspection template or framework. CIW inspects childcare and play services looking at the domains of Well-being, Care and Development, Environment and Leadership and Management. It uses a structured assessment approach based on SOFI2 (Short Observational Framework for Inspection v2). CIW and HIW are cooperating to develop similar approaches that support the WG’s equality and inclusion policies.
“Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW) and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) are the independent inspectorates and regulators of healthcare, social care, and childcare in Wales. Through our work, we take action to improve the quality and safety of services for the well-being of the people of Wales. HIW and CIW have collectively come together, to pool our experience and knowledge, to work on a joint strategy which supports both organisations.
(…)
As departments within Welsh Government, we are guided and work towards supporting the delivery of the Welsh Government’s Strategic Equality Plan and Equality Objectives 2024 - 2028 under the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011, and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). The joint strategy will complement Welsh Government’s equality plans, and aims to align and make connections between existing plans (such as the Anti-Racist Action Plan for Wales and LGBTQ+ Action Plan for Wales for example) amplifying the intersectionality of people’s lives and experiences.”
https://www.hiw.org.uk/joint-e
So compliance with aspects of the Anti-Racist Action Plan might well figure in inspection reports, and unfavourable reports have negative consequences for organisations. |
That's pretty much what I meant.
The document isn't statutaory but elements (such as how setting promote anti-racism) will be. Settings will be judged on how they do that successfully, which may or may not reflect the guidence directly or will have a differening but equally successful sysyem.
In any case success won't be linked to how many 3 year olds are branded racists or have active police involvement.
Why so you think those publications chose to use the particulat headlines they did and not include a link to the source material? | | | |
| More madness on 14:59 - May 8 with 551 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| More madness on 14:53 - May 8 by Gwyn737 |
That's pretty much what I meant.
The document isn't statutaory but elements (such as how setting promote anti-racism) will be. Settings will be judged on how they do that successfully, which may or may not reflect the guidence directly or will have a differening but equally successful sysyem.
In any case success won't be linked to how many 3 year olds are branded racists or have active police involvement.
Why so you think those publications chose to use the particulat headlines they did and not include a link to the source material? |
All the main stream media do it regardless of political leaning. News has been replaced by opinion.If you look at say the Telegraph and the Guardian on the same day you'll see very different accounts of the same story and a very different choice of stories. |  |
| |
| More madness on 15:32 - May 8 with 540 views | Gwyn737 |
| More madness on 14:59 - May 8 by JACKMANANDBOY |
All the main stream media do it regardless of political leaning. News has been replaced by opinion.If you look at say the Telegraph and the Guardian on the same day you'll see very different accounts of the same story and a very different choice of stories. |
I agree.
That's why I'd never use anyof them to prove a point.
There is a point of difference in that the media with those range of views dominate. | | | |
| More madness on 19:33 - May 8 with 500 views | AnotherJohn |
| More madness on 14:53 - May 8 by Gwyn737 |
That's pretty much what I meant.
The document isn't statutaory but elements (such as how setting promote anti-racism) will be. Settings will be judged on how they do that successfully, which may or may not reflect the guidence directly or will have a differening but equally successful sysyem.
In any case success won't be linked to how many 3 year olds are branded racists or have active police involvement.
Why so you think those publications chose to use the particulat headlines they did and not include a link to the source material? |
What I'm trying to get across is that often there is no clear distinction between "bits" that are in primary legislation and in guidance. Rather there is a kind of Russian doll or hierarchy effect in the process via which primary legislation is transformed into law in action. In UK public‑sector and regulatory contexts, the order is: primary legislation → secondary legislation (regulations) → statutory guidance → non‑statutory/official guidance → operational guidelines → interpretation by frontline personnel ("street-level bureaucrats"). The last three categories concern how organisations understand and operationalise what the law requires. Guidance and guidelines may not in themselves be legally binding, but may be taken into account by regulatory agencies or courts (if there is judicial review of organisational behaviour) so that organisations may be sanctioned for non-compliance. Google "law in action approach in socio-legal studies". This is probably boring for many people but one hopes to help the forum understand. | | | |
| More madness on 20:17 - May 8 with 492 views | Gwyn737 |
| More madness on 19:33 - May 8 by AnotherJohn |
What I'm trying to get across is that often there is no clear distinction between "bits" that are in primary legislation and in guidance. Rather there is a kind of Russian doll or hierarchy effect in the process via which primary legislation is transformed into law in action. In UK public‑sector and regulatory contexts, the order is: primary legislation → secondary legislation (regulations) → statutory guidance → non‑statutory/official guidance → operational guidelines → interpretation by frontline personnel ("street-level bureaucrats"). The last three categories concern how organisations understand and operationalise what the law requires. Guidance and guidelines may not in themselves be legally binding, but may be taken into account by regulatory agencies or courts (if there is judicial review of organisational behaviour) so that organisations may be sanctioned for non-compliance. Google "law in action approach in socio-legal studies". This is probably boring for many people but one hopes to help the forum understand. |
Often (at least in educational legislation) it’s easily identifiable by the use of ‘must’ and ‘should’.
I’ve had a quick look at the Estyn framework and I’m not seeing much crossover. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.