Alison Sauer

Rachel, Frankly? You should be ashamed. This response appears to be nothing more than a purely opportunistic grab at an appalling case, aimed at pushing through contentious legislation that has long been in the works. It would seem you either have wholly insufficient knowledge of Sara Sharif’s case or are willfully choosing to disregard the fundamental issues at its core—issues which bear no resemblance to the narrative you describe. As social workers across the country will already tell you—there was ample legislation to keep Sara safe. This case will be remembered in history as a stark and tragic reminder of the risks vulnerable children face when a Local Authority, including its maintained schools, wholly abandons its statutory duties: to identify, assess, monitor, and act when a child is vulnerable or at risk. Specifically, on the Home Education Point: Surrey County Council already has a comprehensive two-page policy that clearly documents what should happen when a child is unexpectedly removed from school. How much of this was followed? None. - Was Sara’s removal properly reported? No. - Was she recognised as a Child in Need or a Child in Need of Protection? No. - Was her past or present vulnerability identified? No. - Was a referral made to Inclusion? No. - Was any attempt made to assess whether she was receiving a ‘suitable education’? No. And this is before addressing the many, many opportunities missed during her six years at school. Six years in which every single behavioural cue, every cry for help, was ignored. And the four years before that? The same story. No amount of legislation will ever keep a child safe where there is an abject refusal to follow it, let alone hold anyone accountable for ignoring it—again, and again, and again. It is hard to imagine a worse example of systemic indifference, appalling maladministration, and unbelievably poor judgement. Meanwhile, as you push through legislation that would have made absolutely no difference in this case, Surrey County Council is quietly lobbying to ensure that a “nice, quiet, and quick little internal safeguarding review” will suffice. And worse still? They already have just the person for the job. No pesky questions. No awkward scrutiny. Just a tidy little whitewash with a bow on it—and a glossy new Bill to put the whole nasty business behind us 🤬🤯😳 As Children’s Commissioner, are you really going to let this happen? If you won’t demand real answers for Sara, then who on earth will? Measure what matters.