Baby P

Tiffany

Tiffany

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 October 2007
Messages
6,922
Location
Derbyshire
Visit site
I agree that maybe the social services could have done more to protect this poor child although what about the parents? They were cruel and devious. On the news tonight it said when the SS last paid a visit, 5 days before his death, the parents had covered his appalling injuries with chocolate and cream so they wouldn't be noticed!
shocked.gif
If SS had taken him away from home, he would still be alive which is the saddest thing but IMO the finger should be firmly pointing at the parents. Lets hope they don't get a lenient sentence. They should lock them up and throw away the key IMO
frown.gif
 
well id prefer hung draw and quartered.. but ya know
I agree BTW Ss could have done alot more.. and im glad the Dr got struck off because to miss a broken spine is appauling..
But the long and short of it is.. its the mother her lover and the sick bastard they let in the horse

lou x
 
Rest assured, i'm sure the parents 'inmates' will be let lose to teach them a thing or two!!
Life in prison for people like them is very different to your average crim!!!!!!!

Sick Sick sick sick sick sick bastards!!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
and im glad the Dr got struck off because to miss a broken spine is appauling..

[/ QUOTE ]
Dr has been suspended, not struck off (yet).

And the very fact that social services had this child on an 'at risk register' means that they failed in their duty to protect the child. Of course the parents are to blame, however SS are culpable imo.
 
I think it stinks of the girl 8yrs ago who was tortured in her bathroom. I think it's appalling that the things to Baby P went un-noticed - especially a broken spine. Apparently the Dr couldn't examine him because he was "fractious and cranky" - the poor mite had a broken spine, I think I would be! It shows how scheming & calculated the mother & her OH were that they could straight away think to hide the marks with melted chocolate biscuits.
There will always be outrage when things like this happen - but what horrifies me is things like this can still happen without us knowing about it
frown.gif
 
Social Services has had a huge overhaul since the death of Victoria Climbie. My view is that although the recommendations made by Lord Laming were comprehensive and overdue, the interpretation by many social service departments has been poor. Multidisciplinary teams is a very good idea, the logic being that if you have the police, health, housing, education and social workers all working together children suffering the fate that happened to Victoria should not happen again. This is due to all failing Victoria and all being held accountable.

However, many local authorities, in implementing these recommendations have ruined the social services part of this team. Many longstanding and very experienced social workers found themselves out of a job because they would not do generic social work and wanted to specialise, ie be child protection social workers, or looked after children social workers etc as that is where their expertise lay - or the reshuffle itself left them without a job. They left and new social workers took their place, in many cases those without experience.

Sometimes the new management structure was in itself also new to the role and therefore cannot guide their new social workers. Another baby P is just waiting to happen. There are currently many local authorities scrabbling to get back to how it was before with specialised workers.

That said, there will always be poor social workers who cannot do their job, same as in any employment in life. However, when a social worker messes things up, a child's life is in danger. Currently, to the disgust of many social workers in the field, many local authorities are being led by directors and upper management who have education backgrounds NOT social services. Until they plough the money into the services, stop using money as an excuse not to bring a child into care but also stop allowing the Human Rights Act to get in the way of child care (as often parents rights are overriding this), these situations will arise. I know of many social workers who have almost had to beg to get a child placed into care, only to be overruled by the legal team as having insufficient evidence over and above the Human Rights Act.

All social workers who are found to not do their jobs properly, as well as directors etc who ignore what is happening below them should be sacked without pay immediately upon the official inquiry being published.

The only thing we can guarantee now is that every single local authority has been looking at every single child in need and child protection case on their books. That said, if management remains poor, that does not mean there is not another baby P living out there unprotected.
 
I hate to say this but I can see this how easy it is for people like this to hide and disguise illnesses and injuries in children.
My little boy is very sick at the moment, I have had the upmost difficulty in getting the medical attention he needs, I have had to beg,my GP, local A&E and two Consultants to listen to me and to investigate what is wrong with him. I have even given them pointers as to what could be wrong (I am a qualified nurse, so I do hvae a few ideas!). This problem has been going on for nearly a year, we are now at the point where he barely eats and can not stand a full day at school.
The case of baby P sickens me to the very core, but the NHS and other service are in such dissary staff no longer seem to care.
If, God forbid, I wanted to hide anything it would be all too easy.
 
I am really sorry to hear about your little boy, I hope he is helped and gets better soon.

In the case of social workers, the majority of experienced (though should be all) field workers would have had the baby cleaned up so they could see him properly. This was a case where he was already on the At Risk Register, so they had the right to go in and check on him as and when. If he had suffered previous injuries, which he had, they should have ensured they checked him properly, even asking the parents to change his clothes and nappy if necessary so they could see him. To the baby this would have been a routine nappy change, so not distressing but it would have given a clear picture to the social workers as to what was happening.

Unfortunately, as in the Jasmine Beckford case it seems the social workers were putting the parents and their issues first rather than fully checking the baby each and every visit.

Of course it is impossible - and not right - to check a child this thoroughly in every routine case, but he was already on the child protection registers, and it is very difficult to have a child registered, so there must have been cause to suspect injuries would occur. I do agree though, final blame rests with the mother and her boyfriend and the lodger, what hideous people these must be, not only did they harm this poor baby, but they took elaborate steps to cover it up. This shows complete and utter understanding that what they were doing was wrong and in my view requires a life sentence. Something they are unlikely to receive.
 
It was my understanding that one of the things that came out of the Lamming report was that social workers should co-work cases, ie not attend one person on their own, this appears to not have been the case here. If young or inexpereienced workers are going out on their own to houses like this, there is every possibility that they will be intimidated by the parents and parents friends. The management structure is hugely at fault. Often the higher managers are not of any of the professions involved in social care or education, but business management graduates, who believe that social care and NHS is like running a car factory. (I actually have that quote somewhere about a hospital being the equivalent of a car factory!)
 
IMHO it is deffinately SS that is to blame.They just can't seem to be able to do their job right (and i appologise now if anyone on here works for SS). they take young kids into care just because their parents have asked for help. Baby P should have been taken into care as soon as he was put on the at risk register. Also obviously it was the GPs fault as well for not noticing the injuries.

hopefully this would make them change the way that they operate. though some how i doubt it.

at least he is resting in piece now (though it should never of happened)
 
It definitely was a recommendation that social workers do not go alone to homes where parents are considered abusive or a risk. It was even a recommendation following the death of Jasmine Beckford in 1985. My thought is that if an adult is afraid of a parent, they need to consider the impact living with them will have on a child already at risk.

Social workers cannot take a child into care simply because a parent asks for help, legally they would not be able to without evidence to support their wish to do so. However, they do take into care children whose parents have asked for them to be accommodated.

I have not known a social services to be run by an "outside" management specialist, that is not to say there are not any. But I have known them run by education specialists and the background needed for this type of management should be that of a social worker who has risen through the ranks and has the experience in field work necessary to make these vital decisions.

The whole system needs an overhaul, again and people need to be held more accountable for each and every case they hold. It will happen again because regardless of whether a social worker is asking for one of their cases to be accommodated there are a huge number of hoops to jump through before that can happen and it is usually stopped at the legal stage.

Some children are lost through the system, such as this baby and Victoria and countless others. I do think this is unforgiveable and also that social workers need to have someone else to go to, an independent body, when they feel that their requests and referrals for care are being ignored or denied by those above them.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Social workers cannot take a child into care simply because a parent asks for help, legally they would not be able to without evidence to support their wish to do so. However, they do take into care children whose parents have asked for them to be accommodated.



[/ QUOTE ]

sorry thats not true, me and my brother were taken into care becaue mum asked SS to give her a bit of help with childcare after school for a few days of the week
 
[ QUOTE ]
Baby P should have been taken into care as soon as he was put on the at risk register.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its much more complicated than that though, they have to have agreement from the legal team etc to actually take kids into care and far too often the social workers are just ignored when they do want to take action.
 
I can't possibly comment on what happened to you, no one knows all the details. The only thing I can comment on is that I have never known this happen, however I have only been involved with them for the past 15 years, so prior to that I do not know what that situation was.
 
I dont get this at all.

There were pictures of the kid, with toys in the background...

Why buy your kid toys and take pics of them (although just occure to me, are these SS pics?) and then beat the shite out of them? Surely if you dont care as much as to abuse them, you wouldnt care about buying them toys.

Hope the feckers rot.
 
I wondered that and also there is a lovely professional photograph of him dressed up too. It is possible his dad and other family members bought him those? Could also again be their way of trying to cover up the abuse and let it seem to others that he was a much loved baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top