DarrenW
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
It sickens me to the core when i hear about this case. Im deeply shocked.
Whilst it may be true the SS etc have a duty of care to protect the vulnerable people they act for it cant be easy for them. If they automatically
thought the worst on every case then they would soon get bad press for taking kids away from families that just need a bit of educating to correct
their ways. Lets just hope that lessons are learnt and systems are improved.
What also amazes me is how organisations like RSPCA can take people to court and prevent them from owning animals but very little seems to be possible
in terms of stopping some people from having children.
Words fail me in this case and i hope indirect justice is served when the sicko's get sentenced (ie from behind the bars).
|
|
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:10 AM |
|
|
I've been giving this some considerable thought, and have read the opinions of others both here and elsewhere, and I have come to the conclusion
that the death of this child, whilst horrifying and very sad, was basically inevitable.
Why do I say that? Well, it's to do with the way society works. Each family unit tends to be isolated from its surroundings, people are no
longer in and out of eachother's houses all day, and things go on behind closed doors that nobody else knows about. The only way children like
Baby P can be protected is if we pay someone else to go into these houses, once they are identified, and check that the children are OK. And therein
lies the problem, we are paying other people to do this work. And anybody who has ever employed somebody else to do work of any kind will know that
that work is never done 100% right 100% of the time. The best we can hope for is almost always Ok almost all of the time. As soon as anything less
than absolute perfection is permitted, then there will be cases such as Baby P's. The only question is, how often?
The best we can hope for is for cases like these to be extremely rare. How rare is that? Good question.
What it all boils down to is how much money do we want to spend? How much of your wages (if you are lucky enough to still be receiving any) are you
happy to allow to go in tax to pay for a much larger, better trained, better equipped, better motivated and better supported social services?
Easy for any of us to say, well, howabout an extra couple of pence on the income tax rate? How much better social service would that pay for? And the
answer is, quite a bit better, but would it be good enough to prevent another death like this from ever happening ever again? No, as with all things
human perfection simply isn't available. The law of diminishing returns applies, and more money spent will reduce the number of innocents who
are slaughtered but not prevent it.
I reckon the real argument here is how much do we want to spend on social services? then we need to consider the police, ambulance services, other
emergency services, all the other things that civilised society needs to pay for, and then work out if we have any money left to pay for anything
else, such as food, or maybe education.
In conclusion, I believe that the people who killed that child are in prison, if we want to blame anybody else then I think we need to have a think
about the way our society works first, and consider whether we should be throwing the first stones.
All the above IMHO
John
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 11:00 AM |
|
|
i like yourviews John. As with all 'problems' they can never be solved effectively without understanding the root cause.
Solving an engineering type problem in this way is relatively simple, however when i did some 6 sigma training a while back i was jokingly advised by
the trainer that topics such as world hunger should be avoided until you are experienced. I guess Social Services comes under this heading!
So - how much do we want to spend on SS - i guess the true answer is nothing. As you say it would be nice if we knew each other well enough to know
what is right and wrong and be able to spot issues ourselves. However i guess there has been serial killers, mental health problems, etc etc for as
long as there has been humans on the Earth so perhaps its a sad quirk of life that there are dubious characters out there intent in causing problems.
Luckily such events are rare.
How much do we need to spend - no-one can ever answer this. For the same reason that fraud experts are always one step behind the criminals, there
will always be people who get away with something, as sad as it might be.
In the case of Baby P - all i can hope is that the widespread publicity at least prevents a repeat in the short term and that the parents etc get what
they deserve and that is also publicised as a warning to others. Iam against vigilantes but there is a fine line and exception to be made in this case
where the baby could not defend itself.
I still feel sick at the thought (allegedly)that the baby had a broken back for a period of time - that is purely barbaric.
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 05:44 PM |
|
|
I would agree with the opinion that there will always be an exceptional cse that slips through the net. I don't think that is the core of this
debate.
I think the issues lie with the amount of times the flag was raised on a baby under a chld protection order and none of the signs were either spotted
or acted upon. I think that is the debate here, and whether those who should, in the reasonable expert opinion (and that;s the important bit) of the
invetigators, have been able to put the evidence together and take decisive action to the benefit of the child, and if so what level of accountability
should the be held for.
If you are the responsible engineer for, say, a railway project and it goes wrong, you can be held for corporate manslaughter. Most SS cases would be
far garder to make a judgement on, but the case of Baby P, in my opinion form what we can read, will more than likely show a catastrophic failure of
the system. Lets not forget that it's not all that long since the same SS dept failed peviously.
The failures in this case are likely to be at a more senior level, where decisions on courses of action are made, rather than with the 'on the
ground' SW's.
In my opinion, a level of accountability and subsequent punishment (criminal rather than just suspension or sacking) i what is needed to ensure that
people, at all levels, are focused on performance and reults.
That is the best way to ensure (IMHO) that, of the few extreme cases that slip through the net (and there will be some) were unforseeable and
unavoidable (such as the recent case in Manchester, where the correct actions were taken by officials, but they simply couln;t get there in time).
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 08:36 PM |
|
|
What pisses me off most is that none of them have been convicted of murder because they "can't prove who delivered the fatal
blow".
Surely it's time for a major review of our laws! I understand that the scandinavian countries have added a 'law of common sense'
which allows the court to proceed beyond technicalities and sentence accordingly.
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
What pisses me off most is that none of them have been convicted of murder because they "can't prove who delivered the fatal
blow".
Surely it's time for a major review of our laws! I understand that the scandinavian countries have added a 'law of common sense'
which allows the court to proceed beyond technicalities and sentence accordingly.
That is a problem in cases like this, but it's the way all UK law works.
I would reckon tha they'll be prosecuted on severa different counts of assualt, abuse and neglect. When it comes down to it, the judge hands
out the sentence and, having sat through the evidence and cross examinations, I can't see how they'd have any sort of leniancy when
sentencing.
I wouldn't
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
They've already been prosecuted Stevie (for murder), but only found guilty of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable
person" because they couldn't prove who dealt the fatal blows.
This means they can't get the full weight that a murder conviction carries.
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 09:58 PM |
|
|
Then thats whole big crock of poo then!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 09:58 PM |
|
|
Seconded! 
|
|
|
