Editorial
| Pages | 237-240 |
| Published date | 03 October 2019 |
| Date | 03 October 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-10-2019-055 |
| Author | Bridget Penhale,Margaret Flynn |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Bridget Penhale and Margaret Flynn
Welcome to this issue of the Journal of Adult Protection and this editorial. As in previous
editorials, we begin with information from a range of media in recent months before moving to
brief descriptions of the papers contained in this issue.
So, in terms of news related items, where best to start? New ways of out-muscling the weak?
New and chronic grievances?
Let us start with the latter. Although it did not announce itself as such, at the end of March 2019
we learned that Japan will finally offer the victims of forced sterilisation a payment of £21,600[1].
Eugenic Protection legislation of 1948 was not repealed in that country until 1996[2]. The
programme was developed to prevent the births of infants with disabilities. However, children as
young as nine were victims of the state sponsored programme of sterilisation. The victims, their
lawyers and advocates are challenging the payment as inadequate (some had sought over
£200k) and they criticise the absence of an apology from government.
“We have better things to do with the money”–that was the message of the outgoing
National Audit Office’s Comptroller and Aud itor General, Sir Amy as Morse[3]. His list ing of
government “failures”includes Crossrail, which cost £2.8bn more than forecast; changes to
probation that have cost £468m to remedy; smart metres costing £500m more than
estimated; and th e unsustainable 1 0-year equipment plan prom oted by the Ministr y of
Defence –£7bn over budget. Morse cited the “inappropriate bravado”of governme nt ministers
and expressed anger at the billions that could have been spent on vital public services, not
least because when “world-beating”projects fail, they almost inevitably seem to hoover money
from other services. So, when the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
slashed the legal aid budget, for example, the valleys of South Wales became legal deserts.
It appears to be of no matter that the Managing Director of the International Monetary
Fund states[4]:
[…] social spending is a broader concept than social protection as it includes spending on health and
education –which are especially critical in low-income and developing countries.
There is no doubt that these programs are vital to promoting the well-being of citizens and social
cohesion. Public pensions can make all the difference between poverty and a dignified life for our
elderly loved ones. Health care does not just save lives, it extends them and improves their quality.
Primary and secondary education give our youngest citizens the opportunity to reach their full
potential and contribute to society.
At a deeper level, I would argue that social spending is a core component of the social contract
needed to fulfil the missions of our respective institutions.
Little wonder, perhaps that the President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has appealed to
members of the public to donate to a charity helping unrepresented litigants. The overall context
for this is that there has been an 80 per cent decrease in the number of people receiving legal aid
over the last eight years[5].
A College of Policing study of knife crime[6] issued earlier this year (spring) reveals that both victims
and perpetrators of such crime are likely to be males in their late teens; tough sentencing/prison does
not work, and ethnicity has no significant effect. Additionally, “gangs”make up a small proportion of
total knife crime and evidence to date indicates that public health approaches have the most
promise in developing a range of interventions such as teaching children problem-solving skills and
anger management.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-10-2019-055 VOL. 21 NO. 5 2019, pp. 237-240, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 23 7
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial