Baby P

[P.K.]

I'm sure parents like myself find it just unbelievable that anyone could treat a child, especially their own child, in this way. Which pretty much makes any other comment superfluous i.e. it's hard to think of anything sensible to say about them because they're completely beyond comprehension.

 

But before they start blamestorming social services just remember it wasn't the social services that committed these horrendous crimes. But why isn't the charge one of murder?

[jimbms]

I thought the facebook group was one of those 'chain e-mail' things, imagine my horror when I realised it was about real people (yesterday). I don't see how the populous can try to blame social services for this, they do a job, what would the world be like if social workers went into homes thinking this type of abuse was going on as a normal? NO ONE, no matter how trained they are should be expected to expect the most vile of human nature when they go to work, these people know the types they are dealing with but when should they start to expect this type of occurrence as a reality/normality? OFC people are outraged, but, would you like to think your neighbour was capable of the horrors those people committed? The mother, step-father and various lodgers have created a vile situation, I wish them a long life with plenty of time to reflect on what they did (and I'm sure there are other prisoners who will be dealing their own justice).

 

Sickening.

thebees I agree social services cannot be blamed as a whole but those who can be partialy to blame are the ones who made their workload so much they missed the signs and those who ignored warnings. As you say it is all to easy to blame groups en block for such failings in communications but you can't account for the deception on the parents side to cover this up. So if you take it to the next stage then blame some of it on the criminal who the police had been diverted to thus preventing their presence at one of the visits, blame it on the drunk who caused the accident of a child causing the paediatrician to be elsewhere when the child went to hospital or blame it on the person with flu who infected the regular social worker and caused them to be off sick for a visit etc etc. If someone made a cockup due to lazyness that led to this incident then yes they should pay but we cannot blame a group as a whole.

 

Freggyragh: A bit harsh there on LDV old chap but it did get the point across.

[hboy]

I thought the facebook group was one of those 'chain e-mail' things, imagine my horror when I realised it was about real people (yesterday). I don't see how the populous can try to blame social services for this, they do a job, what would the world be like if social workers went into homes thinking this type of abuse was going on as a normal?

 

Social Services visited the child and family 60 times in the 17 months of the childs life. They must have had a revolving front door fitted they were in there that often! What do you think the role of social services is in these situations - 'Meet and greet?' or handing around the custard creams?

 

Their role is to assess whether the child needs to be moved into care for its own safety and if they visited the family 60 times and failed to make that observation they should be sacked in my view as they failed in their job at a very basic and fundamental level.

 

All too often in social services you have weak characters that can not stand up to the nasty chav-scum parents they are dealing with. Surely someone must be sat back thinking that after 60 visits they should have done something - but sadly they did not have the guts to do what was right and what they were paid to do (ie, protect this child).

 

As for your question "what would the world be like if social workers went into homes thinking this type of abuse was going on as a normal". I think you'll find that this sort of abuse is sadly often normal and that if they are too stupid or too weak to work it out then they should not be employed in social services. There is all too often a reason why social services are monitoring a child - maybe that might be to do with the perception that a childs parents might not be treating it too well so perhaps if your job is to monitor this you watch out signs as a priority? It does not take a genius to work it out.

[Addie]

Frankly I think they should assume that people are capable of this kind of thing. Because some people clearly are!

 

I’ve been in shops where a member of staff is watching me in case I steal something, they’re assuming the worst of me.

 

I’ve had a run-in with a VAT creature, which assumed (incorrectly) that I was being dishonest. Again assuming the worst of me.

 

I’ve had my daughter questioned by a doctor in A&E when confronted by bruising – fell off her bike on gravel as it happens. I was pleased to observe their attention.

 

I have no problem whatsoever in the authorities assuming, quietly, that there may be something that requires close attention.

 

A child’s life could be at risk so why not have maximum observation as the default?

[thebees]

But why isn't the charge one of murder?

 

I assume its because, none of them admitted being responsible and they couldn't charge all 3 with murder, so the police have taken the only option available. Shame they haven't got that charge over here.

 

Hboy - no no no no no, this is not normal. There are millions of children all over the world, a point fraction of them are abused on this level. Like PK says, it is incomprehensible for a parent.

 

I can only think that the parents of the parents were really bad parents with huge social problems and no morals or 'anything' there seems to be a whole section of society who, to be frank, 'just don't give a fuck', I began to wonder today if long term benefit money was a good idea.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can only think that the parents of the parents were really bad parents with huge social problems and no morals or 'anything' there seems to be a whole section of society who, to be frank, 'just don't give a fuck', I began to wonder today if long term benefit money was a good idea.

 

What has benefit money got to do with it, don't understand?

[Sebrof]

Personally, although I don't believe in censorship generally, I think there is a strong case for censorship of the sort of violent films and games which appear to be a staple part of the entertainment of a large number of people. It's the main reason why I hate most American films.

 

What a load of daily 'ban this sick filth' rubbish. What link do you have between violent entertainment and violent behaviour?

 

Sorry that I disapprove of all your favourite forms of entertainment.

 

But it's interesting that you appear to think that people are not influenced by what they see on television or in the cinema. There is a vast world-wide advertising industry that takes a rather different view.

 

But then, facts, logic, and good taste are not really your specialist subjects, are they?

 

S

[Sebrof]

I can only think that the parents of the parents were really bad parents with huge social problems and no morals or 'anything' there seems to be a whole section of society who, to be frank, 'just don't give a fuck', I began to wonder today if long term benefit money was a good idea.

 

What has benefit money got to do with it, don't understand?

 

Without benefit money, the persons concerned might have starved to death, and ceased to be a danger. Or they might have turned to crime, and been even worse. Who can say? There was certainly plenty of unpleasantness in the days before benefits. There was never a golden age of happy peasants frolicking in the fields without a care.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Without benefit money, the persons concerned might have starved to death, and ceased to be a danger. Or they might have turned to crime, and been even worse. Who can say? There was certainly plenty of unpleasantness in the days before benefits. There was never a golden age of happy peasants frolicking in the fields without a care.

 

S

 

It's flying over my head. Just don't see the link between benefit money and what has happened, or was it more of a passing comment to say they should starve?

[Gladys]

Harrowing report in the IoS today outlining the 'home' this child lived in - dead animals littering the home to feed the pet snake which was free in the flat; the friend of the boyfriend had moved his 15 year old girlfriend in, five children and a rottweiler, which was encouraged to attack Baby P, the bedding was destroyed so frustrating any chance of a murder conviction (for some reason). There weren't 60 visits, there were 60 'contacts' (presumably phone calls, visits to hospital, GP) the latest being one where the mother said she didn't want to see any social workers for a few weeks. The fact that the boyfriend was living in the home was hidden.

 

It would seem that the most fundamental recommendation of the Victoria Climbie report that social workers had a duty to be curious was the one fundament which was sadly lacking. In addition, in an attempt to make courts pay for themselves, the cost of applying for a care order had risen from £150 to over £4,000, yet money should not be a consideration when a child is at risk.

 

True, it is not social workers, doctors or teachers that cause the deaths of these vulernable children, but they are part of the social network put in place to protect children, which they consistently and tragically fail to do too frequently. They are part of the mechanism which is supposed to halt the circumstances that result in such tragedies and each person involved made a decision whether or not to pursue concerns further. That being the case, they may not have caused the death, but they did cause it not to be stopped.

[P.K.]

True, it is not social workers, doctors or teachers that cause the deaths of these vulernable children, but they are part of the social network put in place to protect children, which they consistently and tragically fail to do too frequently. They are part of the mechanism which is supposed to halt the circumstances that result in such tragedies and each person involved made a decision whether or not to pursue concerns further. That being the case, they may not have caused the death, but they did cause it not to be stopped.

Like all these things you have to make a call - is the 'system' fundamentally flawed or was it simply human error?

[thebees]

LDV - Where do I say do away with benefit and make people starve? Don’t bother with an answer, I've totally lost interest.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - Where do I say do away with benefit and make people starve? Don’t bother with an answer, I've totally lost interest.

 

I am not saying you did say that about benefits. Sebrof mentioned something about people starving after you referred to long-term benefit money. Just didn't understand what they had to do with the murders, was only curious.

[Chinahand]

LDV - I said something similar in my post on the first page of this thread.

 

People are suspicious that these people have been under the continual intervention of social and welfare services probably since birth.

 

I admit this is an assumption on my part, but I'd guess their parents also had huge social problems themselves and fed these problems into their children.

 

It looks to me that the interventions of various social and welfare organizations did very little to make these people productive members of society and I do speculate whether they made it worse by making them dependent on the state and its (disfunctional) bureaucracy for almost every decision in their lives. They emerged sociopathic and cruel.

 

Is welfare reform one part of the solution in stopping people ending up like this?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It looks to me that the interventions of various social and welfare organizations did very little to make these people productive members of society and I do speculate whether they made it worse by making them dependent on the state and its (disfunctional) bureaucracy for almost every decision in their lives. They emerged sociopathic and cruel.

 

Is welfare reform one part of the solution in stopping people ending up like this?

 

Sorry Chinahand and The Bees, I didn't read Chinahands first post.

 

In answer to your last question, I would have to say that I cannot see how the problem lies with the welfare system. The government HAS to step in because capitalism is a dysfunctional system that creates unemployment, but we cannot let people starve.

 

And though many are dependent on the state, far more are dependent on an employer for making decision in their lives. If anything, the person on state benefits is more free than the person who works 9-5 but with the added bonus of not needing to do meaningless forms of work if they were to get a job.

 

Welfare reform isn't going to change anything, but I would be interested to know how you think it might.

 

I do wonder why people grow up to lack so much empathy and respect for others, it may be pop psychology but I can only think that it is because they have never been given respect or any love. I would like to know why parents could not give such things to their children. I think you are right though by saying that the problems of the parents are transferred to the children a lot of the time, and one I believe is mainly related to economics.