Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    PMQs isn't a debate!
    A specific question was asked but an answer was not given (no change there).
    but I agree with you in the rest of your post
    Yeah I worded that incorrectly, apologies.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The social workers should get jail or heavy fines. Period.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    Actually, the abuse wasn't ignored. Social services were involved, thus negating it as "ignored". It was overlooked, not investigated properly, but it wasn't ignored.
    Ignoring was in reference to the social services; they ignored what was happening obviously, otherwise this wouldn't have been allowed to happen.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teofilo)
    Cameron seemed to momentarily lose his rag after Brown questioned his motives. Thought it was probably the most genuine I've seen Cameron in a while (he is a father after all).

    At the same time, he did, remarkably, manage to avoid the economy, a subject I suspect he would have had virtually **** all to say on today.
    he was only going to have one question on it (a perfectly genuine and valid question) until Brown told him he was being party political.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo_Lucinda_oo)
    Ignoring was in reference to the social services; they ignored what was happening obviously, otherwise this wouldn't have been allowed to happen.
    It isn't as black and white as this.

    What you have to understand is that social services did their job. THey were passed a case; The child was removed from parents while the case was initially investigated. From the evidence I've read, there was no reason to keep the child in foster care and so, rightfully (in the eyes of protocol) he was placed back into his mothers care, under monitoring.

    This child has been described by several people as a smily, hapy child (Maria Ward, social worker) and his own father described him as a "bouncy boy". Now, equally going on what I've read (and I am unaware of the circumstances or exact injuries), nothing that was reported of the child was unjust, or really any cause for alarm; On April 9th he was taken to hospital with "swelling and bruising to his head", and that the mother claimed that he fell and hit his head on the mantlepiece. Not uncommon for children his age to fall and smack themselves, and for all you know the injuries were conclusive with that kind of accident. June 1st, it was noted that he had bruises - I would be worried if a 13 month old child didn't have bruided from various bumps, falls and rought/tumble play. July 30th, Social services go in to find a "happy, smily child" sat at the table covered in chocolate and cream - The child is clearly happy (from the report we have been given), clearly willing to interact and has had a bit of fun with his dinner.

    It is not social services job to go looking for problems when there really doesn't seem to be any - Yes, when there are issues they should be investigated, but would you really investigate every child that "smiled when I spoke to him" (Maria Ward), seemed like a bouncy, happy child, just a bit grubby from a meal? No, of course you wouldn't.

    Social services, in my eyes, did very little wrong - It was the doctors that failed to recognise the injuries, particularly the assessment by Dr Sabah al-Zayyat of GOSH that caused this childs death. Social Services are not doctors - They are not there to diagnose the ins and outs of children's injuries. That's what doctors are for, and when Social Services have doctors reports saying that the child is healthy and looked after, they rightly should consider dropping the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo_Lucinda_oo)
    I didn't say they didn't speak about anything else.
    That's not what I meant. What I meant was, do you think that Russel Brand's answer phone message was political? Just because politicians talk about it, doesn't mean it's political. They talk about all manner of rubbish.

    Incase you didn't know, politics is the process by which people make decisions, and what is being disputed is the decision to not have an internal investigation into the council that allowed the baby to stay with its parents after it had been proved on several occasions it would be harmful to its health.
    Well that wasn't in your original post. That's political, what was in your original post wasn't. Can you source it, though? Not that I don't believe you, I just can't find it anywhere.

    And yes it is relevant, because people are having their money spent on a half hearted, piss poor service that makes mistakes like these time and time again, and maybe u don't mind your money going towards it, but I do, the same with my family who was put through hell by the Social Service.
    That's no more political than me not liking my history teacher, though - more serious, yes; but it's not like the social services did everything by the book, and now people are saying "Hey, we need better laws here." The social services here ****** up, simple as that. They did it wrong - so it's not that the policies themselves are neccessarily bad (ie, the political bit), it's that the execution of them was bad, and they're totally different things (in the same way that if a perfect architectural design was build by a bunch of idiots who couldn't lay bricks properly, you wouldn't say it was a design fault, it's the fault of the builders).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cucumber sandwich)
    The social workers should get jail or heavy fines. Period.
    I'm in agreement with this. There should be a comprehensive, external investigation into the way that whole unit is run. They clearly haven't learnt anything from the findings of Lord Laming's report into the Victoria Climbie case, and the stupid internal investigation that led to 3 workers being warned is nothing short of pathetic. The first one to go should be the "paediatrician" who didn't realise the baby's back was broken, FHS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    Social services, in my eyes, did very little wrong - It was the doctors that failed to recognise the injuries, particularly the assessment by Dr Sabah al-Zayyat of GOSH that caused this childs death. Social Services are not doctors - They are not there to diagnose the ins and outs of children's injuries. That's what doctors are for, and when Social Services have doctors reports saying that the child is healthy and looked after, they rightly should consider dropping the case.
    The doctors concluded, on more than one occasion, that the injuries suffered by Baby P were non-accidental. Despite this, the baby was returned by Social Services into the care of the home. Why? That's what I'd like to know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    That's no more political than me not liking my history teacher, though - more serious, yes; but it's not like the social services did everything by the book, and now people are saying "Hey, we need better laws here." The social services here ****** up, simple as that. They did it wrong - so it's not that the policies themselves are neccessarily bad (ie, the political bit), it's that the execution of them was bad, and they're totally different things (in the same way that if a perfect architectural design was build by a bunch of idiots who couldn't lay bricks properly, you wouldn't say it was a design fault, it's the fault of the builders).
    This is right, in my humble opinion, and what I referred to in another thread. I don't think the system was at fault, because the system identified a baby in danger and ordered 60 visits to the baby and numerous health visits. It was the failure of individuals that led to Baby P's death. A series of incompetent and negligent mistakes by people who should have known better- the doctors, paediatricians and social workers. These people are evidently not competent enough to do their jobs and should be sacked rather than the mere 3 warnings that were handed out. It needs to be investigated externally rather than internally, which is all I'm aware of at the moment.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    The doctors concluded, on more than one occasion, that the injuries suffered by Baby P were non-accidental. Despite this, the baby was returned by Social Services into the care of the home. Why? That's what I'd like to know.
    No. They suggested the injuries were non-accidental. It was later proved inconclusive through whatever methods they go through. No one knew at that point whether the injuries were purposeful or accidental.

    Thousands upon thousands of children are seen in hospital and GP surgeries up and down the country with bruising and injuries that could be non-accidental. It doesn't mean that they are, and social services do their best to investigate every possible case, but when it is ruled that the injuries could have been caused either way, I don't believe that there is any legal standaing that can keep child and parent apart. (Providing, of course, it was the injuries that took them apart and not injuries + other aspects such as neglect)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    It isn't as black and white as this.

    What you have to understand is that social services did their job. THey were passed a case; The child was removed from parents while the case was initially investigated. From the evidence I've read, there was no reason to keep the child in foster care and so, rightfully (in the eyes of protocol) he was placed back into his mothers care, under monitoring.

    This child has been described by several people as a smily, hapy child (Maria Ward, social worker) and his own father described him as a "bouncy boy". Now, equally going on what I've read (and I am unaware of the circumstances or exact injuries), nothing that was reported of the child was unjust, or really any cause for alarm; On April 9th he was taken to hospital with "swelling and bruising to his head", and that the mother claimed that he fell and hit his head on the mantlepiece. Not uncommon for children his age to fall and smack themselves, and for all you know the injuries were conclusive with that kind of accident. June 1st, it was noted that he had bruises - I would be worried if a 13 month old child didn't have bruided from various bumps, falls and rought/tumble play. July 30th, Social services go in to find a "happy, smily child" sat at the table covered in chocolate and cream - The child is clearly happy (from the report we have been given), clearly willing to interact and has had a bit of fun with his dinner.

    It is not social services job to go looking for problems when there really doesn't seem to be any - Yes, when there are issues they should be investigated, but would you really investigate every child that "smiled when I spoke to him" (Maria Ward), seemed like a bouncy, happy child, just a bit grubby from a meal? No, of course you wouldn't.

    Social services, in my eyes, did very little wrong - It was the doctors that failed to recognise the injuries, particularly the assessment by Dr Sabah al-Zayyat of GOSH that caused this childs death. Social Services are not doctors - They are not there to diagnose the ins and outs of children's injuries. That's what doctors are for, and when Social Services have doctors reports saying that the child is healthy and looked after, they rightly should consider dropping the case.
    The injuries were consistent with those found in the majority of child abuse cases, as were the parents excuses. There were over 60 visits made to the house, and none of them were able to realise the child was being abused? And the social workers who claimed he seemed happy are now rightly under investigation. Of course, they are only human, and it is difficult to determine when a child is being abused, however you only need to look at the injuries he had, both new and quite old, and how horrific they were, to see how wrong they were. They constantly wrongly accuse parents of child abuse, yet when it's right under their nose they let it go? I'm sorry but my family was put through absolute hell because of the social services and it completely ruined our lives. And to see it's happening everywhere else as well just goes to prove how piss poor the service still is and why it needs major, urgent reforms.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo_Lucinda_oo)
    The injuries were consistent with those found in the majority of child abuse cases, as were the parents excuses. There were over 60 visits made to the house, and none of them were able to realise the child was being abused? And the social workers who claimed he seemed happy are now rightly under investigation. Of course, they are only human, and it is difficult to determine when a child is being abused, however you only need to look at the injuries he had, both new and quite old, and how horrific they were, to see how wrong they were. They constantly wrongly accuse parents of child abuse, yet when it's right under their nose they let it go? I'm sorry but my family was put through absolute hell because of the social services and it completely ruined our lives. And to see it's happening everywhere else as well just goes to prove how piss poor the service still is and why it needs major, urgent reforms.
    Please be aware of falling into media led traps; The "60" chances that social services "had" will include numerous visits to the house before the child was returned, numerous meetings with the mother on her own, numerous house visits to the father without the child and numerous encounters with the father without the child. The house's condition was a cause for concern before the family were relocated, so visits would have been made regarding this. Although 60 encounters between members of the family and social services are accurate, the actual face-to-face time with the child is likely to be considerably less than this.

    I would also like you to cite where you've found the information that the "injuries were consistent with child abuse" as were the parents excuses.

    I still do not hold social services responsible; Neither do I hold the system responsible. Every Child Matters (the policies released after Climbie) are extremely effective and have undoubtly saved childrens lives - But you can't save every life. It's highly like that the procedures laid out in ECM are the procedures that led Baby P to be highlighted as a potential child abuse case in the first place.

    What let him down, and I stand by this, are the doctors who failed to see such horrific injuries.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    Anyone see Prime Minister's questions? Pretty cheap of Brown to accuse Cameron of playing party politics, he seems to say that every time someone makes a legitimate criticism of his government's failings.
    Yes, I thought so too.

    (Original post by Lucyyy)
    "The system" are letting people down all the time - just this case had a rather more unfortunate consequence that most.
    "The system" does the best it can; of course it can improve, but suggesting that it lets people down has very negative and improper connotations.

    However the very idea of taking children away from their parents, or questioning a parent's ability, is perhaps one of the potentially greatest affronts to personal liberty that the state has the power to make. As such, use of this power is obviously very much reserved.

    I've just read Spotty Dog's opinion, and I think I agree with most of what she has said too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    However the very idea of taking children away from their parents, or questioning a parent's ability, is perhaps one of the potentially greatest affronts to personal liberty that the state has the power to make. As such, use of this power is obviously very much reserved.
    Don't you think it's time we started erring on the side of caution? For the greater good, if you like. If we take 100 kids away from their parents, 99 of whom are good parents but one baby is saved from mistreatment, then is it worth it? I know the numbers are arbitrary, but bear with it for argument's sake.

    I know it's a tough decision to make, but with one child dying every week at the hands of their family, then I think it's something that's worth considering at least. A minor offending of people or infringement of their personal freedoms is a worthy sacrifice, in aid of the greater good.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    Don't you think it's time we started erring on the side of caution? For the greater good, if you like. If we take 100 kids away from their parents, 99 of whom are good parents but one baby is saved from mistreatment, then is it worth it? I know the numbers are arbitrary, but bear with it for argument's sake.
    I'm afraid I don't agree. Pulling once child away from a decent, loving parent is simply not on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    Don't you think it's time we started erring on the side of caution? For the greater good, if you like. If we take 100 kids away from their parents, 99 of whom are good parents but one baby is saved from mistreatment, then is it worth it? I know the numbers are arbitrary, but bear with it for argument's sake.
    This reminds me of the fairly recent scandal in which hundreds of parents were removed from their parents, with very little justification (if someone can link to this, would be appreciated)

    What you have to remember is that intruding into people's family lives and removing children from their parents is enormously harmful to all parties. Its not just "A minor offending of people or infringement of their personal freedoms", its a bloody massive step. Removing babies from their parents is generally a very, very bad idea.

    That is the problem here. Its nearly impossible for social services to always get this right without massively intruding on people's private lives. Parents inevitably cover up their own abuse, and so its extraordinarily hard to know what to remove a child from its parents, and when not to. I don't think its really fair to be blaming social services unless there is clear evidence of negligence on their part.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that three staff members were officially warned suggests at least some negligence on their part.

    Re the infringement of their personal freedom: I think you have to remember that for the vast, vast majority of parents this won't be an issue at all because there is very little suspicion over them at all. Where I do think a 'safety first' policy should be taken is when there is reasonable doubt, such as repeated, 'non-accidental' bruising, rather than waiting for 100% clear evidence. Take the children away and do the full investigation after. That way, it will be the cases where the parents are at least a bit guilty who are 'punished' rather than just any random parent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Not really political, is it?
    This story is in fact, very political.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    The fact that three staff members were officially warned suggests at least some negligence on their part.

    Re the infringement of their personal freedom: I think you have to remember that for the vast, vast majority of parents this won't be an issue at all because there is very little suspicion over them at all. Where I do think a 'safety first' policy should be taken is when there is reasonable doubt, such as repeated, 'non-accidental' bruising, rather than waiting for 100% clear evidence. Take the children away and do the full investigation after. That way, it will be the cases where the parents are at least a bit guilty who are 'punished' rather than just any random parent.
    You make it sound so simple.

    'non-accidental' bruising. Children get bruises all the time, e.g. by playing football with friends. You generally have no way of knowing how these bruises are caused.

    'reasonable doubt': its very hard, then, to be in 'reasonable doubt' for the most part. I'm pretty sure the current policy IS safety first when there is 'reasonable doubt'. THe problem is getting to a stage of 'reasonable doubt'

    'Take the children away and do the full investigation after'. Its pretty hard to investigate the situation once the children have been removed from their parents. Moreover, I find this a morally unacceptable attitude to take. You are sanctioning that babies be removed from their parents with very little evidence against them. You do need to weigh up the harm that removing children from their parents causes to all parties with the chance that the children may be getting abused, its not a 1 way calculation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know it's not as simple as it sounds, and I've expressed that already.

    Firstly, playing football with friends doesn't fall under the category of 'non-accidental' bruising. To make it simpler to understand, think of it in terms of 'intentional' bruising. That is what a qualified doctor advised was the cause of Baby P's injuries- another human's intentions.

    Following on from that, therefore, the current policy cannot be 'Safety First' if a qualified doctor advised that the bruises were intentionally caused and yet Baby P remained with the parent and her partner. It is in cases like these that I advocate taking the children away, and in some cases less obvious.

    Like I say, I know it's not easy and it will ultimately rest on the judgement of a few individuals, but these individuals have to be told that they cannot take a chance when they are in reasonable doubt of the safety of a child. I know it will be extremely difficult for the parent, but I'd say it was a necessary evil. I've also already explained that the vast majority of parents won't find themselves within a million miles of this situation, so they won't figure into the reasonable doubt framework.

    I'm just advising that a more cautious approach is taken even if it does increase the number of mistakes that are made. The bottom line, for me, is that these mistakes will not be ultimate and they will not cause the end of life.

    That is basically where I stand on the matter.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.