” Her report was attacked by a number of social work academics for a lack of rigour, transparency and gaps in the methodology which raised questions of accuracy:
“There are… troubling aspects of the report… the process by which it was prepared, in particular, the lack of rigour and transparency in the methods used to gather and analyse data… we are not told how this massive volume of information was reviewed and analysed within what was a very short time frame. This gap in the report should concern us, as it goes to the heart of issues of accuracy, transparency and rigour.”
It was evident, from the stereotyping language and in the stalling of inquiries into white state paedophilia, that a distinctly biased, demonising agenda was pursued.”
As the introductory part of this series showed, a timeline of events and the PM’s proclamations had pretty much predetermined the outcomes of the Casey Review. The government now needed a person who could see this agenda through to its toxically racist end. Casey, based on her history, was the right person to get this done.
Louise Casey – Violently Averse to Evidence-Based Policy
Casey is referred to as a “Tsar”. A 2009 Commons Select Committee noted that a “Tsar” differs from a civil servant in two respects; “first the direct appointment by the minister or Prime Minister and second a degree of public personal identification with a particular policy or piece of work which would not normally be expected from a civil servant or special adviser.” In effect, the process shuns Parliamentary parties, and therefore potential opposition in the formulation of…
View original post 2,729 more words