Baby P

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Maxi_77, Nov 13, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Does any one else out there share my utter dismay at the Labour parties reaction to this case.

    Firstly it would appear that a Labour controlled council has closed ranks to protect their staff rather than the public and is actually trying to get us to believe their social work department is good at it's job.

    Secondly our prime minister tries to may cheap party political points over legitimate questioning by the oposition and then fails to appologise when he realises just how crass he has been.
  2. Totally agree with you - can't even begin to put into words how I feel about it
  3. Yes, this was totally crass. What was "playing politics" was the review Mr Balls announced at 1630 yesterday pm- perhaps with one eye on damage limitation for the evening news. If he knew he was going to announce it, why no statement to the House before PMQs? Oh, I forgot, this government doesn't make statements in Parliament first does it....

    As for Brown, words fail me- actually they don't, but they're certainly not printable in a public forum. I thought Cameron did very well not to leap over the Despatch Box and chin the heartless idiot. The Speaker actually attempted to do his job properly for once, which makes a change. People accuse Cameron of a lot of things, but given his own experiences it could be expected that he's sincere over matters of childcare- and in this case to be honest the smae should go for any decent human being.

    I'm not sure Maxi that brown did realise what he'd done- that would have to credit him with a level of emotional intelligence I find it difficult to believe that he has.
  4. I couldn't believe it right fcuk up with social services. Someones to take the parents for a long walk and double tap to the head

  5. Ditto to the above , i would like to break both their backs slowly ....
  6. REgrettably I think he knew exactly what he was doing, he was getting whipped by Cameron so he threw in the 'making it political' comment to try to break the attack then tried to back track without an appology when he realised that Cameron had the measure of him and was about to at least metphorically hit him with the mace.

    I suspect had the Kinross by-election been today that the result might have been different, and very few of the Tories and Liberals who voted Labour to stop the SNP winning would have done so today. Equally I suspect a good few decent Labour supporters would have felt themselves unable to vote for GBs mate as well.

    The man has an ego almost as large as Mr Blair, thoigh neither of them can compare with Cheri.
  7. All of which misses the point, surely. Political point scoring is inevitable in high-profile cases of this nature. The tragedy is that the lessons of previous child abuse cases have gone unheeded. Lord Laming is to head to the enquiry into why his original bureaucratic proposals failed, rather than an independent investigator examining where Lord Laming went awry. All political parties, the media and public share a degree of responsibility in the failure to act following the villification of social services staff after Cleveland. The popular misconception of Cleveland was that most children were wrongly removed from their homes by over-zealous social workers when the reality was in fact the reverse. Most children were subsequently wrongly returned to their parents despite ample evidence of abuse.

    The media and certain parents' groups (claiming to have been wronged by social services) have eroded the ability of social services to act. That said, the post-Laming (following his recommendations) child protection mileau is one which has replaced front-line investigations with back-room cross checks between various agencies, none of which seem able (or willing) to intervene. Repeatidly parents' rights are seen as the sine qua non of social cohesion in the form of the "family" to the detriment of the rights of children not to be abused. A perfect example of this public mentality is the belief that whilst it is unacceptable for young people to hit vulnerable pensioners, it is OK for older people to hit vulnerable children by calling that species of battery 'reasonable' chastisement. Assault is unreasonable. The dividing line between one form of child battery and another is often conditioned by the parents' own perceptions of parental norms. Whilst the former PM may have considered hitting a child with their outstretched hand as being acceptable, others regard using a weapon to hit a child as being equally valid, often grounded in religious doctrine.
  8. I think for once Thingy you are defending the indefensible, I watched that woman stonewall the reporters and suggest that in reality her department was doing well, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is clearly and manifestly wrong that she should be able to conduct an inquiry into her own failings which was the labour party position up till late yesterday afternoon when the penny dropped. I watched G Brown insult Cameron, and I read the transcripts several times just to be sure. Yesterday brown stooped so low I dont think he will ever be able to stand up straight again it was abysmal, almost as bad as that woman, who is clearly not fit to carry out the position she currently holds.
  9. Oh HER..... But she was right. The mother was deceitful. I mean one expects abusers to be totally open about what they are doing, this being the British way, and all that. :roll:

    Whilst I agree SHE should go, like in Climbie, those at the top will not be held to account. Laming's report recommended focussing on more layers of bureaucracy (which he belonged to) rather than focussing resources on the social workers themselves. The focus after Laming was a top down approach to the child, rather than focussing attention from the child's needs upwards. The point about the latter approach is having an accountable case worker with power to act in the best interests of the child rather than these powers being delegated to remote managers with no direct experience of a specific child's needs and subject to political interference. This case will be repeated time and again because of the culture of managerialism.......
  10. Sounds like I missed a really good scrap between Brown and Cameron. Quite how there could be any debate over this is beyond me. It seems that holding political office means never having to accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Shame!

  11. Leaving aside the eternally dismal politicians, the world of the social worker is not as we know it.

    The ex wife used to work in social services in Stockport, then Wandsworth. Not as a Social Worker but as an admin wallah, trying to organise them. She used to attend "case conferences". It drove her daft (now there's a point?) trying to organise the wet buggers. I used to meet them now and again. Hell's teeth! That said, they were totally sincere and genuinely cared about people: people who I wouldn't have p**sed on if they were on fire. Social work attracts these wet idealists (not that all fall in that category).

    I can imagine them agonising over balancing the interests, feelings and rehabilitation of parents against the safety of the children. It only takes a really committed and caring Worker to get promoted to the top and the whole department can be seriously buggered. Perhaps those at the top should be the least suited to being Social Workers?

    Anyway, for whatever the circumstances, a disgraceful affair. As an asside, I do wish the BBC would annunciate "Baby P" differently.
  12. I wonder why anyone would want to be a social worker, I know that after 20+ years in frontline health care I could not even begin to imagine some of the decisions that would be made. Take the children to safety on the least bit of suspicion, anyone remember the Orkney satanic abuse cases in the 1980s and early 1990s. social workers were rightly criticised for being too eager to break up families on the smallest pretext. now they are trained to keep the family together as much as possible (with due regard to the child's welfare) - now obviously something has gone catastrophically wrong in this case, and heads should roll, but rather than knee jerk reactions why not wait until the facts are out.

  13. FFS PoL; You are depressingly accurate. Probably accounts for why the same social workers also tried to prevent the mother's second child [born in prison] from being taken into care. The reason that the social work team leader gave was that depriving the mother of the opportunity to 'bond' would infringe her human-rights. Luckily the police overruled these eedjits - this child is now safe.

  14. The facts will out in due course, but the frustration in this case is that this is the same London Borough that was responsible for the awful cock-ups that led to Victoria Climbie's death.

    Baby P was 17 months old, had been recognised as being "at risk" for most, if not all of his depressingly short and inexcusably painful life and the local combination of brain-dead healthcare, police and social services should have had him in care. It was his parents who killed him, poor little mite, but the major weapon used was the indifference of those agencies responsible for his welfare.
  15. I don’t understand why, if a child is declared “at riskâ€, they are not taken into care immediately.

    What is the sense in saying, in effect, “this child is in danger but we will leave them there and see how things turn out�

    As for Brown, according to his logic it seems any questioning by the opposition is playing party politics and therefore to be deplored. I can see why he is called “Stalinâ€
  16. Thousands of children are on the "at risk" register. As I said in my earlier post, social workers were castigated for being too eager in the 80s and 90s to break up the family and take children into care on very flimsy evidence. Although it may stop cases like Baby P from happening, would splitting thousands of families up for fairly trivial reasons "just in case" be a price worth paying?

    I see several children on our estate playing out till much later than their peers, their parents (I assume) love them and want no harm to come to them, but if I was to report it as "concern for welfare" should they go into care?

    In my own job (I work in clinical healthcare management) I see many children in A&E who come in after getting drunk - these are reported to social services. Parents who attend A&E frequently with their children (the "concerned parent") are sometimes given help from social services to manage their parenting skills.

    I'm sure none of us would want to be a child protection social worker, be too cautious and families end up fractured and the stigma remains. Be a little laissez faire and the consequences don't bear thinking about.

  17. Yes, but there was an injunction granted to prevent her from saying anything in public.

    For all that "whistleblowing" is encouraged, it doesn't seem as though the "system" has caught up!

    Whilst I wouldn't advocate the crap that went on when the RAD and satanic abuse cases were in the news, some "families" need to be broken up, or their children die. Society appears to have forgotten that it's the kids' lives and welfare that should be driving this, not some misplaced wish to preserve the family unit at whatever cost
  18. In cases like this I feel compulsory sterilization should be mandatory.
  19. Quite a bit of research has gone into this which has apparently showed that children are generally better off with their parents than in care, which is highly correlated with later problems such as an increased risk of delinquency, etc. The point is that social workers are supposed to put the welfare of the child first, not its people. Like it or not, children who come from stable two parent households are less likely to result in delinquent children, thought this is not, of course, universally the case.

Share This Page