http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/child-protection-baby-p
[Edited on 14/11/08 by woodster]
Could/should something have been done
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/child-protection-baby-p
[Edited on 14/11/08 by woodster]
Usually turns out to be the case when these things happen and you find out how many opportunities were missed to prevent some kids death due to massive incompetence.
shocking 
As usual the Govt and all the agencies have put on their teflon suits and started sloping shoulders.
Interesting that someone thought it worth getting an injunction preventing anyone knowing there was an allegation of mismanagement but didn't
think it worth actually investigating whether it was true or not.
If the injunction prevented the right people being told about the problem (as implied by R4 this morning) then the dept who applied for it should take
full responsibility AND in future judges shouldn't issue injunctions in cases like these without ordering independent investigations of the
issues.
[Edited on 14/11/08 by iank]
I saw this this morning, absolutely shocking.
What i don't understand is that if the government knew and fsailed to act then shouldn't those individuals be tried as accessories just like
the managers/directors of railtrack for manslaughter.
After all if they'd acted on the information then this terrible event might of been prevented.
quote:
Originally posted by jabbahutt
I saw this this morning, absolutely shocking.
What i don't understand is that if the government knew and fsailed to act then shouldn't those individuals be tried as accessories just like the managers/directors of railtrack for manslaughter.
After all if they'd acted on the information then this terrible event might of been prevented.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
quote:
Originally posted by jabbahutt
I saw this this morning, absolutely shocking.
What i don't understand is that if the government knew and fsailed to act then shouldn't those individuals be tried as accessories just like the managers/directors of railtrack for manslaughter.
After all if they'd acted on the information then this terrible event might of been prevented.
totally agree
A letter was received and it was replied to therefore all proceedures were followed and everyone involved can go home and sleep peacefully.
On the other hand, if social services act too soon, they're damned for breaking up families unneccesarily. It really is a no-win sort of job.
Central government is in no way responsible for this. It is a function of local government. Harringey council are the ones responsible for their
social services provision. You can't blame Gordon Brown or Parliament for this.
By the sounds of it, and previous cases in Harringey, it is a pretty rough area with lots of people with violent tendancies. The council has a tough
job trying to monitor these people, a job which perhaps they should be doing better.
Remember that even the council's social services department are not responsible for this babies murder, the family are the criminals here.
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
Could/should something have been done
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/child-protection-baby-p
[Edited on 14/11/08 by woodster]
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
Could/should something have been done
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/child-protection-baby-p
[Edited on 14/11/08 by woodster]
I notice the Guardian didn't publish a copy of the letter, perhaps they should have, and we could judge for ourselves how we would have reacted if we had been the minister (or presumably one of her assistants) reading it.
....
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Which part of injunction don't you understand? The letter was written pre-injunction, bus as soon as the high court rules the papers can't publish a thing about it except it exists.
quote:
Originally posted by iank
The point is a social worker claimed there were serious problems and procedures introduced to prevent another child abuse death were not being followed in Harringey.
Instead of investigating and fixing the problem they sacked her and got a gagging order.
I have to agree with Mr Henderson.
The parents / carers killed the baby. Without us all being exposed to massive scrutiny I don't think this can ever be prevented.
Just heard on the radio that the dad had the baby to stay with him a day or two before the death. How could he not have realised abuse was going on
/ baby had broken ribs and back, but we expect social workers to spot it?
Stu
Although I had a bit of an anti- Social Services whine (on a previous thread) due to my own experiences. Many have pointed out that it is the
appauling perpetrators of these crimes who are the cause, not social services. I'm sure some of these awful people lie, cheat, threaten etc, but
that is know then people become social workers. Deal with it, don't let that be an excuse for inaction.
The horrible lowlifes are out there. Are the newspapers not now speculating that the family on Shannon Mathews abducted and held their own child,
causing a £3million investigation, for a £50k reward??
Until we live in a distopian nightmare where groups of people aren't allowed to breed because they are deemed subhuman by some ruling caste these
things always have the potential to happen. The mentally ill (can't see any other possible explaination of how someone could do that to a
kid) aren't always diagnosed before they kill someone.
That's why we pay for social services through our taxes, to spot the problem early and fix it - however it's best fixed.
They certainly won't always succeed but, I for one, expect them to learn lessons from every tragedy AND follow any procedures introduced from
those lessons to prevent another.
That's what the expensive investigations are supposed to do, and there's already been one in Harringey after the Victoria Climbie case.
Procedures were introduced to try and prevent it happening again.
Now it turns out there was an allegation from a social worked that those procedures weren't being followed, and in their professional opinion
children were at danger because of that.
If the investigation, which has to happen to try and prevent it happening again, finds any truth in that allegation heads need to roll because people
we pay and trust to be competent are obviously incapable of doing their job properly as they aren't learning from the expensive mistake of the
past.
As another datapoint from an interviewee on R4 a couple of days ago: social services failed to spot the problem despite knowing the kid was covered in
bruises every visit because they were convinced by the mother that the kid was 'clumsy'. Yet while the kid was in temporary foster care the
bruised all healed, but came back soon after this kid was returned.
If that doesn't raise a red flag what do they have to do? Hit the kid while there's a Social Worker watching?
The sick b*st*rds are going to prison and will no doubt have a miserable time when the other prisoners find out who they are/what they did. But if
the DSS weren't doing their job properly then they need to be held to account.
quote:
Originally posted by iank
That's why we pay for social services through our taxes, to spot the problem early and fix it - however it's best fixed.
They certainly won't always succeed but, I for one, expect them to learn lessons from every tragedy AND follow any procedures introduced from those lessons to prevent another.
Who wants to bet that when the sickos are imprisoned that they will be protected from the other inmates in some way to prevent them from being
harmed?
they generally are, child sex offenders for instance in some prisons, (maybe all) are held in a completely separate part of the prison as the other inmates would make their life hell and possibly end it for them too.