![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Gav
No you are not
To be honest, I think you are being far too charitable
But lets not go there, this case ( and this thread) is far too sad
Sadly two wrongs don’t make a right
Now, now Gav...if you're not careful you'll get accused of being a Daily Mail reader.
No you are not
To be honest, I think you are being far too charitable
But lets not go there, this case ( and this thread) is far too sad
Sadly two wrongs don’t make a right
I believe the Nazis were quite keen on that kind of thing...Putting the mistakes of social services aside for a moment, I know it would never happen (too many bleeding-heart liberals), but am I the only one that thinks these "parents" be forcibly sterilised?
Education and recreation – investing in people and giving them opportunity both in work and leisure time is likely to produce better results than alienating them.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
In my work we have a lot of dealings with Social Services and it can often be frustrating. But people who train to be a social worker normally do so with the best intentions. We have Social Workers in my team who are extremely concerned for the welfare of our clients. There are all sorts of constraints that are put on them and a lot of time due to financial reasons. Clearly there have been tragic errors by Social Services in this case and one thing is for certain it won’t be the last time something like this happens. But obviously they are not fully responsible for what happened to this child after all it was the adults responsible for his care that inflicted the injuries. But again it is probably not as straight forward as to call them evil etc, the likelihood is that they have been victims of abuse themselves
Personally, I think that Social Services, with all it's many imperfections, mistakes and, yes disasters, does a very good job in, quite frankly, next to impossible circumstances.
Most difficult job? Parenting. 2nd most difficult? Social Services.
What happened before Social Worker? What void does social services (and the rest of the social welfare system) fill?
I suggest that this was all taken care of by the local community. Our elders were our advisors and counsellors. Communities dealt with those that chose to disrespect their customs and traditions. They were outcast. Not pleasant, maybe, but effective and vital to maintain the community cohesion. Ok, perhaps that was slightly earlier than civilisation!!!
I really sympathise with this .... but there must be a more humane way.
I heard of a woman who had 4 for 5 children (by different, transient partners, as I remember), all of which had been removed by social services, because she was unable to parent them .... and she still wanted .... just one more .... to try to do it adequately.
This simply shows a gross lack of responsibility. And ignores the suffering of the previous 4 or 5 new lives. But, apparently, she has a right to have child after child ... or should I say to ruin life after life.
This is a failure of society as a whole and community in particular.
Social Services does as an ok job (at worst) to pick up the pieces after most of the damage has been done, without knowing any in depth history or background .... and almost impossible feat, quite frankly.
Sadly, I think that the organisation has fallen victim to the targets syndrome, now endemic in our society. We no longer have a bank manager, or anyone in any organisation that personally handles 'our account'. Call centres abound .... targets favour quantity over quality. Quantity looks good on paper, and feels so very wrong in practice. Serving 98% of customers to minimum spec (ie badly) produces good reports to a cost.
Sadly, such is the cheapness of today's society.
But that's exactly the point. This child's mother was sent to parenting classes and visited repeatedly to try to help her in the home. Some people just can't be educated.
Have we all read how many times this child came to the attention of those so called fantastic social workers involved in this case. What i find absolutely astounding is, this child was clearly being abused, they did nothing about it. They gave that mother chance after chance after chance. Why did they do that. What on earth was the thinking behind it.
I stand by my convictions on this one. Im not talking about social services as a whole but the team that were involved in this particular case DOES have blood on their own hands. Why have they not even been suspended pending investigation. No resignation.. nothing. They are all running and hiding behind the errors made.
If i was a surgeon and killed somebody on the table, i would be held repsonsible and investigated until it was ruled out as nothing could have been done. Why is this different.
The animals that were convicted are to blame of course they are but also the system and twats that were given opportunity to stop this are in my opinion are responsible also.
but thats exactly what it is Rob. Black and White.
An 18 month old little boy was brutally tortured, injured on more that 70 occassions. FACT
The social services were aware this was going on. FACT
The little boy died a horrific death and suffered all of his life. FACT
The social services did not act correctly or get this stopped (own admission) FACT
Which part of this do you want to grey up then.
yes of course they are all human and mistakes are made. Simple. Unfortunately in this case, the mistake cost a human life. The mistakes are not just a simple case of money going missing or loss of business. The mistakes that were made were made over and over again.
Yes they all work hard, yes most of them do a good job but this has to be answered.
Sensationalise it, ***. What a stupid comment and pointless.. Criticise. yes. I am criticising their efforts, their decisions, their actions, everything that was done. And yes, im not the only one. And yes, it will continue because of all the issues surrounding the social services with regards money, time, staff blah blah blah.
Question it yes. Do it myself, no because i would shoot every dirty mother ****er out there who so much touched a childs hair on its head. Not the job for me im afraid. Respect for those who do do it, 100% Question it when theY **** up with a childs life.... ABSO****INGLUTELY.
I'm fairly sure we're all outraged, shocked and saddened about this. There's something heartbreaking about it - maybe it's the photos of the kid, maybe it's the suffering - which is particularly shocking about this case above others.
For example, a woman murdered her two baby children last week - which, you'd think, was even more tragic. But that's not had half the publicity - not 1/10th in fact - that Baby P has.
Sometimes, terrible things happen. That doesn't mean we need to make emotion-driven and hasty decisions.
We have a process, we have enquiries, let's wait to see what they find out.
Agreed that what happen means that the decisions were wrong. I would like to understand why the decision was made. I guessing from the news reports that the case worker recommended removal and bosses felt the guide lines were not met. This could a lack of understanding of the guide lines or the guide lines themselves.
On another point. Simply saying well the parients were brought up that way so they children get treated the same is no excuse or reason. My childhood was far from ideal being basic brought up by my gran. I sure don't bring my children up the same.
yes your right David, that case didn't get as much publicity because it was a completely different scenario. This woman (and i use the term loosely) did this off her own back, nobody was aware of it and the children were killed in one cruel blow from what we can see.
The reason this gets so much as we all know if the horrific way this child was treated. Infact horrific is not even strong enough to describe what this poor little mite went through. Every avenue that this child could have been spared was shut to him. Thats why its so publicised. This does not mean the other case is not as tragic either.
Yes we shall wait and see what they come up with and we will shout, scream, get angry, cry when this happens again which undoubtedly it will and nobody has the answer but the frustration that we all feel is apparant and will never go away. This is what is frightening. It makes us think.
Not sure about that - from that article:
Police visited the house a few hours before finding the children, who were known to Manchester social services.
I cant find any details on it but i dont think there could have been major incidents with the SS or surely this would have come up as well.
Mmmm.... the cynic in me wonders whether there's a "photogenic" aspect to the disparity.
Eugenics makes perfect sense - improve the human race by trying to get rid of defects. We are clever enough to be able to do it too. The problem is when people have a different idea of what a "defect" is - "being Jewish" obviously being an extreme example. The human race, being as it is (mainly biased with an edge of bastard*), means Eugenics is never likely to be a workable concept on anything other than a very small scale - and one would hope, with the consent of the people involved. Where we are talking about sterilising criminals, this is punishment not eugenics. Unless we can point to genetics accounting for the crimes they commit in some way - which may be arguable in the case in a minority of the mentally ill, but "my genes made me do it" seems rather suspect as an argument
There could also be grounds for sterilisation based on being "unfit" as a parent (expecting the state to look after child after child for example). Certainly the argument for that over government sponsored abortion, which already happens in China for reasons of population control, is going to be more compelling for some. Abortion is not exactly preventative. But thats a lot of government interference to accept in peoples lives - it does seem we are heading that way though. Is the fact that someone cannot have children detrimental to society ? Should our ethical compass be pointing toward society first or the individual first?
As a society we now take care of our children in ways we never did before. Infant mortality is so low because we choose to take an interest in each and every one. Compare that to even 100 years ago. The social workers involved in this whole situation can learn something from it, but being, as they are, employees stuck in the middle - subject to rules and regulations whilst trying to represent the interests of both parents and children - i dont think they have any "blood on their hands". They failed in this one case, they didn't "cause" anything to happen. Also, its less of a failing on individuals and more of a failing of the system in place. It clearly does not work as well as it should.
* "Mostly Harmless" bah, Douglas Adams wasn't cynical enough
Hmm, interesting reading this. I have a gut reaction to people slating Social Services - it feels unfair and judgemental, and full understanding of a case cannot be gained from media representation. But I can't quite put my finger on exactly what the problem is for me, or how to address it.
And this is pretty much the situation that case workers across both health and Social Services can find themselves in. One can have a gut feeling that something is wrong, that a child is being abused, but without solid evidence it is hard, if not impossible, to do anything about it.
Gut feelings can therefore prompt close involvement with a situation, to try to get the evidence to back up those feelings, but gut feelings alone are not sufficient to remove a child from its family. Therefore if a family are good at hiding the evidence, then it's extremely difficult to provide proof of abuse and therefore the need to remove the child for his/her safety.
There is a shortage of foster care and adoptive parents, so one cannot remove every 'gut feeling' child into care, even if such a thing was desirable. One has to do everything possible to improve the home situation.
I'm not saying that systems are perfect, or failsafe, and there are many things that stand to be improved. What I'm saying is that these situations are not cut & dried, however much they are open to interpretation as such by those who have not been involved.
It doesn't matter how good social workers and social services get at the job they have to do; it doesn't matter what resources we, as tax payers, throw at our councils to improve the situation; it doesn't matter whether every penny of money is spent on demonstrable initiatives which will all bear fruit or whether some of it is spent on things which are a bit of a wild blue gamble. Parents will abuse children and some of them will fall in the gaps and some will die. Anyone who expects perfection from any social service authority anywhere is going to be sadder and disappointed by the time they die. These things are so immeasurably, unimaginably, indescribably complex and difficult.
The minute a child is considered for some intervention, problems accumulate. Will the police remove the child as being in immediate danger? If not, social services will need to get an interim order. Immediately the child becomes an even larger drain on the budget because now there are twice as many staff involved and the child has to be fed, clothed and cared for. Now decisions have to be made - can the parents be allowed some form of limited access with a view to returning the child to them after a period of assessment/education/training or must the authority apply for a 'freeing' order allowing the child to be put up for adoption? In the meantime are there any fostering facilities available or must the child be put in a home? Foster parents have to be paid for; so do hostel facilities.
If there is to be a freeing order, there will be one legal team for the local authority; a second legal team for the child; a third legal team for the mother; a fourth legal team for the father; this means a multiplication of effort as all communications have got to flow three ways out and three ways back.
If the child goes into 'the system' and does not come back out then the statistics are awesomely bleak. Children in care have horrible chances of getting a decent education and even worse chances of getting a decent job.
If the wrong decision is made, the staff involved face investigation; discipline; dismissal. The departments face enquiries, legal action, heavy compensation claims.
It may be remembered that I am fond of saying that you cannot solve law and order problems with law and order policy; likewise you cannot solve social problems with social services departments.
There is a reporting process in place and my protest is limited, at this time, to a demand that the process be fair and open and arrive at the right decisions. If there have been failures, then the right remedies must be applied. If people lose their jobs, so be it. But it isn't my place to decide that after reading a few newspaper articles and seeing some 30 second news reports.
Pah! How are we ever going to bring back wide-scale lynching with that sort of attitude?
Re: What is happening to social services?
Forced sterilisation would be wrong! But to encourage it with a 'reward' scheme, perhaps with £100's worth of Netto coupons, a Jeremy Kyle DVD box set and two cartons of Benson & Hedges
Last edited by StokeBloke; 18th-November-2008 at 02:07 PM. Reason: Not enough evil overlord laughter... mwaahahahahahahahahhahh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks