No wonder the powers that be wanted the Baby P case hidden from public eyes.
The truth is a shocking indictment of the systems failings, and the inabilitiy to learn from past mistakes at the very same council.
The report into the failings was hidden away for a long time, and it is only now after a pre election pledge by the Torys and the Lib Dems, that it has been released.
It is clear the the report needed to be published so as all the mistakes could be looked at and learned from.
But Ed Balls, Education Secretary under the Labour government, blocked it - insisting it could damage the care of children. Bollox.
He was trying to save his own neck and the necks of the incompetent people who failed Baby P, on many occasions.
Looking at the report it is apparent why he wanted it hidden from public scrutiny, for the mistakes are breathtakingly shocking.
Shoesmith......... INCOMPETENT.
Social workers.......INCOMPETENT
Doctors...... INCOMPETENT
Lawyers............INCOMPETENT
Police..... INCOMPETENT
For me the very people at the heart of this were the degree educated Social Workers, who failed time and time again to spot obvious dangers. A key meeting was delayed for seven weeks, whilst that child suffered more abuse.
I am glad that the report has been published, all thanks to the Sun newspaper and it's readership who put huge pressure on the Government at the time and the new Government.
Covering up such important issues as this from public scrutiny, is typical of the last Labour Government and to try and cover up the systems failings in such a dreadful case, is guilt personified.
Every single person involved in this case, who let that child down should have been sacked, and never to be allowed to work in that field again.
Shoesmith did not and still does not, recognise her part in all this. She has paid a small price for her and her departments INCOMPETENCE.
Unfortunately justice will never seen to be done in this case, as no person will ever actually go to prison for incompetence on such a huge and horrific scale.
The truth at least has come out, and the people involved in this case who stood by whilst this child was systematically tortured to death, really on this very sad evening, should hang all their heads in total shame.
Not many things in life turn my stomach as much as this case has.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Baby P.....ALL incompetent
Sex God
Agree with you Kents.......and bet it'll happen again.
John
John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Agree with you Kents.......and bet it'll happen again.
John
Oh it will unfortunately Geordie.
Mistakes will never be realised when Ministers try and cover up the truth.
When we read the report is it any wonder names and agencies wanted to be kept out of the public arena.
Until proper punishments are handed down to people in a position of trust and responsibility to protect the very vulnerable children in our society, then of course this will happen again....as much as it pains me to say it.
Sex God
Of course the inquiry found everyone to be incompetent.
If they hadn't, they would have had to find at least one individual or single group to be to blame. Then they would have had to prosectute, there would have been an investigation, an appeal against any and all accusations and then it would have cost money to settle out of court or to press teh prosecution. But to find all of them incompetent they can't prosecute everyone so they prosecute no-one and it doesn't cost a penny and 'honour is satisfied'.
Except that poor child is still dead.
If they hadn't, they would have had to find at least one individual or single group to be to blame. Then they would have had to prosectute, there would have been an investigation, an appeal against any and all accusations and then it would have cost money to settle out of court or to press teh prosecution. But to find all of them incompetent they can't prosecute everyone so they prosecute no-one and it doesn't cost a penny and 'honour is satisfied'.
Except that poor child is still dead.
Quote by foxylady2209
Of course the inquiry found everyone to be incompetent.
Except that poor child is still dead.
:sad: hindsight is a wonderful tool, all chat and meetings (by the powers to be) will agree big mistakes were made however 2 things wont ever change
babe is dead and wont be the last
peeps lie, to cover thier arse or slack off
human nature :sad:
The report has slammed everyone. If it was this bad, then this goes right to the top of government as well. But lets not look at funding, under-resourced staff, etc. Lets just do a blame game for the Sun.
The evil gits have been found guilty and sentanced. Why didn't the authorities spot it? What were the checks and balances and why did these go wrong?
If we are going to have an inquiry paid for by the public then lets have a proper one, answering the relevant questions and how to prevent it again. This needs to look at frontline, senior management and funding by government.
However much we try to kid ourselves, money is very important and this is what gets withdrawn and leaves kids vulnerable.
Now with 25% cuts coming along, I do not see this getting any better.
Dave_Notts
The evil gits have been found guilty and sentanced. Why didn't the authorities spot it? What were the checks and balances and why did these go wrong?
If we are going to have an inquiry paid for by the public then lets have a proper one, answering the relevant questions and how to prevent it again. This needs to look at frontline, senior management and funding by government.
However much we try to kid ourselves, money is very important and this is what gets withdrawn and leaves kids vulnerable.
Now with 25% cuts coming along, I do not see this getting any better.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
The report has slammed everyone. If it was this bad, then this goes right to the top of government as well. But lets not look at funding, under-resourced staff, etc. Lets just do a blame game for the Sun.
The evil gits have been found guilty and sentanced. Why didn't the authorities spot it? What were the checks and balances and why did these go wrong?
If we are going to have an inquiry paid for by the public then lets have a proper one, answering the relevant questions and how to prevent it again. This needs to look at frontline, senior management and funding by government.
However much we try to kid ourselves, money is very important and this is what gets withdrawn and leaves kids vulnerable.
Now with 25% cuts coming along, I do not see this getting any better.
Dave_Notts
What about instead of using that old council workers excuse of underfunding, or under resourced staff which is a total cop out, and a bloody weak excuse....what about being brave and just say no excuses the whole lot of them were rubbnish at their jobs??
This had nothing to do with funding at all....how many Social worker visits were there?
A comment from the Times....
" Day in, day out, we do business with social workers. We have dealt with thousands. So knowing something of how they work we are not surprised that Baby P was visited by social workers 60 times - and still they didn't spot the abuse, let alone stop it. That example of catastrophic failure can be put down to the paralysed, emotionally shutdown culture of some modern social workers ".
Check it out.....60 times he was visited. Are you really telling me that is under resourced? Underfunded? NO IT IS NOT !
A typical weak left excuse....play the blame game or pass the buck to some other poor fucker to pick up the can.
The buck stops at Shoesmith.
We did have a proper enquiry aimed at the very same council !!
Is it just pure coincidence that it happened at the same council? Or was this council negligent then and with regards to the Baby P scandal? You bet they were.
Inquiries teach us about mistakes made, but useless incompetent staff, have to be clever enough to take those new changes on board....I get sick and tired of reading about overworked Social workers making huge mistakes. If they cannot do the job they are paid very well to do, that is to protect vulnerable kids, then get out of the job. For they are not making a difference at all.
You carry on making excuses for peoples incompetence's, and they will continue to make the same mistakes.
Oh and btw.....the Sun was the major source of getting this report published, am not suprised there are many out there who believe it should have been kept locked away. NO blame game played, the Sun wanted answers as did their readership.....they got it to a degree.
Quote by kentswingers777
Check it out.....60 times he was visited. Are you really telling me that is under resourced? Underfunded? NO IT IS NOT !
Time and time again when this subject was discussed you were shown the reports where the visits by social workers numbered half a dozen times. This was shown when the whole document was produced that showed who visited and when.
So now the basis of your whole argument of 60 visits is a newspaper report that is wrong in its statements. Great argument Kenny :thumbup:. If you are going to rant about a subject then do be accurate so a balanced decision can be made.
I will condemn individuals who have shown a negligence in their duties that was foreseeable by them i.e. the doctor who never spotted a broken back. As yet though I cannot condemn a whole organisation until I see their workload, funding and policies (and who decided these policies i.e. local or national).
So under resourced is not an issue?
OK Kenny, I will make it simple for you.
Here is a list for you to look at and you decide who is seen first and when. You have 5 employees in your team. To make an assessment they can see 5 people a day each.
At the beggining of the day you have 50 refferals.
16 come from the police who have reported bruising on the children
13 have come from hospital with serious injuries
17 have come from schools about undernourishment
4 from neighbours who said the neighbours are battering their kids
Who do you see first? Just bear in mind that tommorrow the refferals come in again so you can't save the backlog for then. What would your criteria be to wittle this down to a workload where the children can be seen?
I wish that these services could visit every accusation on the same day, but unfortunately there are just not enough resources.
So to dismiss resources is very short sighted. One person can only do so much and be in one place at any one time.
Dave_Notts
having read the report (took a very long time and it was late at night so might have missed things on it) its clear that many people didnt do their jobs as they should have
for me the people who stood out most as not doing their job were the doctors
however the only people who actually physically harmed and killed baby p were put into jail, his mother is one of them !
for me the people who stood out most as not doing their job were the doctors
however the only people who actually physically harmed and killed baby p were put into jail, his mother is one of them !
Quote by Dave__Notts
Here is a list for you to look at and you decide who is seen first and when. You have 5 employees in your team. To make an assessment they can see 5 people a day each.
At the beggining of the day you have 50 refferals.
16 come from the police who have reported bruising on the children
13 have come from hospital with serious injuries
17 have come from schools about undernourishment
4 from neighbours who said the neighbours are battering their kids
Who do you see first? Just bear in mind that tommorrow the refferals come in again so you can't save the backlog for then. What would your criteria be to wittle this down to a workload where the children can be seen?
I wish that these services could visit every accusation on the same day, but unfortunately there are just not enough resources.
So to dismiss resources is very short sighted. One person can only do so much and be in one place at any one time.
Dave_Notts
Where the hell are you getting these figures from exactly? Are you picking them from a daily resource or are you just picking them out of thin air? Oh right thin air it is then.
Sorry I cannot deal with thin air politics, only factual resources which YOU or I do not know.
What I DO know is your drivel above is purely and simply an excuse finder for incompetent individuals.
No wonder we have the same mistakes made over and over again , when people like yourself cannot or will not accept the fact, that people no matter how good the system is, will make mistakes purely because they are useless at their job.
You carry on blaming the lack of resources, and the lack of staff....blah blah blah, and I will trust the fact that the system let the child down but not because of the weak excuses YOU are using , but because they as individuals failed at their duty of care...........BADLY !!
Quote by kentswingers777
Here is a list for you to look at and you decide who is seen first and when. You have 5 employees in your team. To make an assessment they can see 5 people a day each.
At the beggining of the day you have 50 refferals.
16 come from the police who have reported bruising on the children
13 have come from hospital with serious injuries
17 have come from schools about undernourishment
4 from neighbours who said the neighbours are battering their kids
Who do you see first? Just bear in mind that tommorrow the refferals come in again so you can't save the backlog for then. What would your criteria be to wittle this down to a workload where the children can be seen?
I wish that these services could visit every accusation on the same day, but unfortunately there are just not enough resources.
So to dismiss resources is very short sighted. One person can only do so much and be in one place at any one time.
Dave_Notts
Where the hell are you getting these figures from exactly? Are you picking them from a daily resource or are you just picking them out of thin air? Oh right thin air it is then.
Sorry I cannot deal with thin air politics, only factual resources which YOU or I do not know.
What I DO know is your drivel above is purely and simply an excuse finder for incompetent individuals.
No wonder we have the same mistakes made over and over again , when people like yourself cannot or will not accept the fact, that people no matter how good the system is, will make mistakes purely because they are useless at their job.
You carry on blaming the lack of resources, and the lack of staff....blah blah blah, and I will trust the fact that the system let the child down but not because of the weak excuses YOU are using , but because they as individuals failed at their duty of care...........BADLY !!
The figures are used as an example. If you wish to look at actual figures and reports then look up any Ofsted report on child services in any county of the UK.
Dave_Notts
Sex God
I have come to regard the "underfunding" statement, as a bit of a get out of jail card
*In Edit*
I would even go so far as to say that over funding and staffing can be more of a problem
*In Edit*
I would even go so far as to say that over funding and staffing can be more of a problem
Quote by kentswingers777
Here is a list for you to look at and you decide who is seen first and when. You have 5 employees in your team. To make an assessment they can see 5 people a day each.
At the beggining of the day you have 50 refferals.
16 come from the police who have reported bruising on the children
13 have come from hospital with serious injuries
17 have come from schools about undernourishment
4 from neighbours who said the neighbours are battering their kids
Who do you see first? Just bear in mind that tommorrow the refferals come in again so you can't save the backlog for then. What would your criteria be to wittle this down to a workload where the children can be seen?
I wish that these services could visit every accusation on the same day, but unfortunately there are just not enough resources.
So to dismiss resources is very short sighted. One person can only do so much and be in one place at any one time.
Dave_Notts
Where the hell are you getting these figures from exactly? Are you picking them from a daily resource or are you just picking them out of thin air? Oh right thin air it is then.
Sorry I cannot deal with thin air politics, only factual resources which YOU or I do not know.
What I DO know is your drivel above is purely and simply an excuse finder for incompetent individuals.
No wonder we have the same mistakes made over and over again , when people like yourself cannot or will not accept the fact, that people no matter how good the system is, will make mistakes purely because they are useless at their job.
You carry on blaming the lack of resources, and the lack of staff....blah blah blah, and I will trust the fact that the system let the child down but not because of the weak excuses YOU are using , but because they as individuals failed at their duty of care...........BADLY !!
What Dave is doing is giving you an example of the type of pressures and stresses that social workers face day in, day out. But you're not interested in hearing any of that. Far easier to keep up your hate campaign against social workers. You're not interested in solutions. Or finding answers. You just want to kick, kick and kick again a profession doing its hardest against all the odds to keep young people safe.
The fact is social workers don't spend enough time with youngsters on the at risk register. They don't spend enough time with them because they struggle to get through the door past the parents. They don't spend enough time with them because they've got too many cases. They've got too many cases because people don't want to do that type of social work because it's the hardest and riskiest. These factors are compounded by the fact it is hard to put together a solid case to get a child taken in to care by a judge in a family court. You can't just do it on a hunch. These are not excuses. It is fact.
So against all of this background, and because they are human, they sometimes get it wrong. Just like you make mistakes in your printing business every now and again. Difference is that yours isn't a matter of life or death. And you should be thankful you don't have that type of responsibility on your plate, Kenty.
We all agree that serious mistakes were made in this case. But the way in which social workers in general have been vilified using this case as an example means it is harder than ever to attract new recruits to a profession which desperately needs more staff. The immature name calling, shouting and bawling from you is not helping prevent another Baby Peter.
Sex God
The job is clearly a stressful job, but this can not be used as an excuse for poor performance or choices.
For me this is less about the choices the persons makes on who they visit, but more about the choices made during and after a visit.
For me this is less about the choices the persons makes on who they visit, but more about the choices made during and after a visit.
Quote by Bluefish2009
The job is clearly a stressful job, but this can not be used as an excuse for poor performance or choices.
For me this is less about the choices the persons makes on who they visit, but more about the choices made during and after a visit.
That's fine, but there's no exact science to balancing risk. How many times have you made a judgement in your professional life about something or someone and you turned out to be wrong? It's very easy to say but a lot harder to do.
Here are some other things to think about:
* Taking a child away from their family dramatically increases their risk of never having a job and descending into a life of crime.
* The cost of keeping a child in care can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year if they need intensive support.
* There is a massive shortage of foster carers in this country so the child may well end up living away from their friends and other relatives, destabilising their life
So recommending to a court that a child should be taken into care is not a decision to be taken lightly.
Sex God
Quote by Stevie J
That's fine, but there's no exact science to balancing risk. How many times have you made a judgement in your professional life about something or someone and you turned out to be wrong? It's very easy to say but a lot harder to do.
Here are some other things to think about:
* Taking a child away from their family dramatically increases their risk of never having a job and descending into a life of crime.
* The cost of keeping a child in care can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year if they need intensive support.
* There is a massive shortage of foster carers in this country so the child may well end up living away from their friends and other relatives, destabilising their life
So recommending to a court that a child should be taken into care is not a decision to be taken lightly.
I fully understand your comments, in fact I have a relative who works as a social worker, sadly we only see her at selected times of the year as she has had to move up country to work. But this does not change my view point.
I still do not see that the stress can be used as an excuse, if you can not stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. people in all walks of life have stress and decisions to make on a Daily basis. For instance a bus/coach driver holds the lives of many people in his hands as he makes his life and death decisions. He may have a bus full of school children as he makes those decisions and choices. Stress is not reserved for social workers. Just like the rest of us, if we make bad or misguided decisions we must pay the consequences.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I still do not see that the stress can be used as an excuse, if you can not stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. people in all walks of life have stress and decisions to make on a Daily basis. For instance a bus/coach driver holds the lives of many people in his hands as he makes his life and death decisions. He may have a bus full of school children as he makes those decisions and choices. Stress is not reserved for social workers. Just like the rest of us, if we make bad or misguided decisions we must pay the consequences.
I fully agree with what you are saying. If they are qualified, and cock up in their job by not following procedures then they, as individuals, should be brought to account.
However, if decisions are made higher where they are not given the time, or powers to find the answers then this is a resource issue and the people higher should be brought to account. If the higher people haven't been given the resources then the people higher than them should be brought to account.
In the Baby P instance I have not been shown where the frontline people cocked up. They had a case, they went to it, they followed procedure and the evidence at that time did not show that the child should be removed. I may be wrong, but I believe that social workers do not have the power to carry out body checks on children e.g. searching their body for bites, bruises, burns etc. They have to rely on what they can see. A clever abuser can easily put long clothes on the child, rub chocolate over facial bruises so the social worker cannot see. I think this would be a great power for them, but can you imagine the outcry. This is one that will rumble on, whether to give draconian powers to social workers so they can inspect children on the first visit. I really do mean inspect and not interview......but I can imagine that there will be lots of people against this idea.
Now if the doctor had told them that the baby had a broken back and they done nothing then I would be the first to call for them to be sacked.
If we start removing children at the first accusation then the country will be in uproar as thousands of kids are snatched from their parents until a full investigation can be initiated. This is the only way to try to prevent it happening again IMO.
I am not a social worker, and to be truthful the only involvement with them was not a brilliant one. It was from this experience that I saw that for them to act the evidence has to be very strong. I wanted them to act but the parent could put on an act that would have won an Oscar. Finally the act slipped, evidence was gathered and then they could act, but it took a bloody long time. In all that time there was a child suffering, I knew, the child knew, but the social workers couldn't prove it, the school gave support to the parent so they couldn't act. It was a sad state of affairs, but had a happy ending.
So short version is, if individuals cock up then they should be dealt with but don't blame a whole profession that do save thousands each year for the wrongs of a few.
Dave_Notts
