Baby P - applause or tossed to lions?
Discussion
mat777 said:
They do seem to be spectacularly incompetent and utterly unaccountable - all the newspaper articles of them snatching children from good homes on made-up baloney "mental health" issues, yet they come over all supine when someone is suffering real abuse.
Proves my point really. They don't "snatch" kids from good homes for no reason. They don't "snatch" kids from anywhere. They take kids into care when they think there is a possibility that they are being abused. That happens in good and bad homes. They often get it wrong, and take kids that have been hurt accidently. Then they get caned in the press as interfering liberal busibodies. They sometimes fail to take kids because they think the injuries are accidental when they aren't. Kid end up dead later on and then they get caned in the press as not making enough enquiries and failing to interfere when they should have done.
They often get it right, and then no one gives a damn. After all, that's their job, innit.
Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said: "This is a case that should strike fear into the heart of every social worker."
It should first and foremost strike fear into the heart of public concern for vulnerable children at risk. While public sector apologists debate process, remember the outcome here is that a child died. A couple of social workers facing the music pales into insignificance, not least since the chances are that after a slap on the wrist and some retraining they'll be promoted to go screw up somewhere else. If not then an appeal, compo, retraining and promotion to go screw up somewhere else.
As for mention of the private sector, that's another thread - there have been some already.
It should first and foremost strike fear into the heart of public concern for vulnerable children at risk. While public sector apologists debate process, remember the outcome here is that a child died. A couple of social workers facing the music pales into insignificance, not least since the chances are that after a slap on the wrist and some retraining they'll be promoted to go screw up somewhere else. If not then an appeal, compo, retraining and promotion to go screw up somewhere else.
As for mention of the private sector, that's another thread - there have been some already.
I think there a number off issues here (havign worked at a seperate council department that also involves interfering with peopels lives with legal powers that can go tits up if you are in the wrong).
Money - money is obviously an issue for every council - the money to fund staff to take on the work and the money to pay for looking after these kids when they are pulled out of homes. I would hazard a guess most councils dont pull kids out unless its a really bad case. The council may well have a legalduty to do osmehting but that doesnt mean much - the dept I worked in had a duty to enforce significant numbers of laws but we didnt because we didnt have the resources.
The law - does the law make it too difficult to get kidso ut of their homes? Obviously there will be safehuards to protect parents but do these safeguards make it hard to get to the wrongdoers if you cannot get conclusive or the required proof? I would gues smany of the wrongdoers do not 'play ball' which in itself could make the effort to get the kid out of the hosue an arduous task
Enforcement - finally, how does each council enforce the law - are they aggressive or soft? Just because the law is there, it does not mean it is enforced. Each council will have some disgression - and as mentioned because there may have been cases of kids taken out of home unnecessarily or just general bad press many councils get for this kind of thing they may not act unless absolutley necessary - which may be too late.
I think the aspect you can apologise for these specific social workers if they they have to work within the above conditions and they have no control over it.
In my job I saw lots of people blatantly breaking the law - but there were so mny limitations on me, they ofte ngot away with it. We didnt have the time or money, the law wasn;t clear enough - or most frustrating, it would look ba don the council if we took any action.
Money - money is obviously an issue for every council - the money to fund staff to take on the work and the money to pay for looking after these kids when they are pulled out of homes. I would hazard a guess most councils dont pull kids out unless its a really bad case. The council may well have a legalduty to do osmehting but that doesnt mean much - the dept I worked in had a duty to enforce significant numbers of laws but we didnt because we didnt have the resources.
The law - does the law make it too difficult to get kidso ut of their homes? Obviously there will be safehuards to protect parents but do these safeguards make it hard to get to the wrongdoers if you cannot get conclusive or the required proof? I would gues smany of the wrongdoers do not 'play ball' which in itself could make the effort to get the kid out of the hosue an arduous task
Enforcement - finally, how does each council enforce the law - are they aggressive or soft? Just because the law is there, it does not mean it is enforced. Each council will have some disgression - and as mentioned because there may have been cases of kids taken out of home unnecessarily or just general bad press many councils get for this kind of thing they may not act unless absolutley necessary - which may be too late.
I think the aspect you can apologise for these specific social workers if they they have to work within the above conditions and they have no control over it.
In my job I saw lots of people blatantly breaking the law - but there were so mny limitations on me, they ofte ngot away with it. We didnt have the time or money, the law wasn;t clear enough - or most frustrating, it would look ba don the council if we took any action.
turbobloke said:
Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said: "This is a case that should strike fear into the heart of every social worker."
But social workers operate under constant fear anyway. Fear that they are going to get stabbed, or a bottle over the head at the next door they knock on, fear that they are going to make the wrong call and take a kid away incorrectly, fear that they are going to not take a kid away incorrectly, fear that they are going to be sacked for not keeping on top of an unmanagable caseload, fear that the shortcuts they've taken to try and manage their unmanagable caseload will come back to haunt them.And all that for not a huge amount of money and precious little thanks. The biggest mystery to me re social work is why and bugger does it?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
turbobloke said:
Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said: "This is a case that should strike fear into the heart of every social worker."
But social workers operate under constant fear anyway. Fear that they are going to get stabbed, or a bottle over the head at the next door they knock on, fear that they are going to make the wrong call and take a kid away incorrectly, fear that they are going to not take a kid away incorrectly, fear that they are going to be sacked for not keeping on top of an unmanagable caseload, fear that the shortcuts they've taken to try and manage their unmanagable caseload will come back to haunt them.And all that for not a huge amount of money and precious little thanks. The biggest mystery to me re social work is why and bugger does it?
I would hate any job that involved dealing the public - I can't begin to imagine how horrendous it must be to deal full-time with the sort of people social workers handling child protection must be faced with every day.
It's likely that many people could be found who agree they wouldn't want to do the job, but surely the point is that the people who are hired to do it should first of all want to do the job, be suited to it, and be sufficiently well trained to do it competently whatever the level they work at. This doesn't seem to happen often enough.
Mojooo said:
Spanna - were social servics contacted by yourselves directly or were they notified by the mental health people?
Both had correspondence with them. When we first split she wouldn't let me see my son and she was sending some awful messages. I spoke to her mother who expressed some deep concern.
She then went to the doctor and was diagnosed. Both of us then had multiple visits from social workers over the next week or two to set up a sort of routine for baby, the days he would be with each parent etc.
A few weeks after this was when she made the so called 'attempts' at her life and she was admitted to the mental health clinic for a short period. From then they had contact with social and both ex and child were 'listed' at a certain level of severity.
She then had to go and see a mental health specialist once a week, but no visits from them or social were ever made from then on.
Reading what I've just wrote back, if mental health had continued contact from that point and said 'everything seems fine' the social may well have left it at that. And then a slight breakdown in communication happened with the local social to lead to the recent phone call with them.
98elise said:
andymadmak said:
"Mistakes?" You'd think they'd run out of Tippex, not buried a tortured, murdered toddler
More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-182062...
You do realise that they didn't kill baby P don't you?More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-182062...
People die in hospital every day yet we don't see the media going after nurses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It was/is their job to protect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of children, but there simply isn't enough social workers to do that. The NHS had failed to diagnose the broken back but it seems the social workers should have done so.Do some research and learn about the conditions the doctor who failed to diagnose the broken back was working under. IIRC she was working in conditions that were possibly not only illegal, but meant that she couldn't possibly do her job properly. Do a bit of research and learn how Great Ormond Street Hospital isn't/wasn't quite the establishment that we'd like to think it is.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
He was seen buy many professionals, but social workers are always singled out by the press for blame regardless what they do.People die every day in hospital which can easliy be attributed to lack of care, however its the best we can do without a s
t load of cash being injected. Its fhe same for social work.They did not kill the child, the parents did. Destroying someone career because of it gains nothing, other than make the press happy.
manic47 said:
I thought the removal was blocked by the Haringay legal department, not Sharon Shoesmith.
If you look into the timeline of the case, it's surprising the police and doctors involved didn't get equally vilified.
Pretty much wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. It was thoroughly reported and discussed at the time if 'search' can be kicked into working.If you look into the timeline of the case, it's surprising the police and doctors involved didn't get equally vilified.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff