woodster
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
Baby P and the Government
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
shocking 
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
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]
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
jabbahutt
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:31 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 10:41 AM |
|
|
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
Agree fully... But we all know it wont happen....
How do you spell that word again... dremocraty?... Um.. Democactsy.... I give up....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 11:09 AM |
|
|
A letter was received and it was replied to therefore all proceedures were followed and everyone involved can go home and sleep peacefully.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 11:35 AM |
|
|
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.
I wonder how many SS departments there are in the whole country where 'procedures are followed'. Very few, I should think, if any.
Following procedures without variation or failure is something that only happens in perfect worlds, where departments have perfect procedures and,
more importantly, the manpower and cash to follow them.
It's my impression that in the real world all departments, no matter what aspect of our lives they are supposed to look after, do as much of
what they are supposed to as they can, and hope that those things that they are unable to do don't get them in to trouble.
John
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
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.
....
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. As soon as that gets lifted it will be in all the papers I'm sure.
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.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
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.
A good point, and one that I am happy to concede
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.
Well, with respect, we don't actually know that, do we? We don't know what investigations were carried out.
I expect we will know eventually, after there has been an investigation which will no doubt cost millions which IMO would be better spent improving
the services that are being investigated, rather that investigating them, again.
I'm by no means sticking up for this SS department or any other, my personal opinion is that most of them are probably as incompetent and
self-serving as the media make them out to be.
My concern is that is going to be yet another investigation that is going to do absolutely nothing to improve the system, but which will increase the
burdens of paperwork and the difficulties that the junior staff in these organisations work under.
My further concern is that we are once again in another 'trial by media' scenario.
How coulld this have happened, we are already hearing. Well, in my opinon it happens because nature allows simple-minded semi-humans to have
children, and the laws allows them to keep them.
John
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
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??
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
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.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
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.
But are we paying enough? It's no good paying for one person to do a job that needs two to cover properly, and then complaining that the job
wasn't done right.
It's my guess that the procedures were thought up and introduced, and it's also my guess that the resources to ensure that these
procedures were implemented and adhered to, the cash, the staff, the training, the back-up etc etc were not.
Everywhere I look I see evidence of what has been going on since the stone age, employers and organisations expecting perfect results but not
providing the cash to get them.
How much tax would you be happy to pay to ensure this never happens again? I personally think that if the taxes doubled it still wouldn't be
enough. There will never be enough resources to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again.
And another thought, how about all the people who are killed in road accidents, babies, children, adults, why aren't the media screaming about
that? Those deaths are just as tragic, surely?
Virtually all road deaths are preventable and yet they are not prevented. Simple reason, it's too expensive.
John
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 14/11/08 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
