The Baby P Case

mirwillbeback

Have just finished reading an article about this poor child in the UK and was wondering what people's opinions are.
A lot of blame is being directed at the social workers, and rightly so - but what gets me is that they are all being named and shamed whilst the parent and bf cannot be named for legal reasons.
In my view, they should be named, shamed and released, and let the public give them justice. I think they should be tortured themselves and executed.
People like that have no use to society, in my view the can never make amends. What is the point of them being kept in captivity to live an even more worthless life, all the while their meals and accomaodation being paid by deductions made to your working wage.
It disgusts me, and the time has come to have severe penalties for such evil.
Thoughts?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Well we have this thing called democracy and a legal system in place so what do you expect to change?

I hear Riyadh is lovely this time of year. Look into it.

Dades

There's no justice, like angry mob justice. :pac:

eth0_

Nice one. Making a proclamation like that without knowing the facts.
There's no doubt what they did was disgusting and they should go to jail for it, but one or all may be seriously mentally ill.

Nevyn

eth0_ wrote: »

Nice one. Making a proclamation like that without knowing the facts.
There's no doubt what they did was disgusting and they should go to jail for it, but one or all may be seriously mentally ill.

Were the caseworkers also mentally ill ?

johnnyskeleton

mirwillbeback wrote:

A lot of blame is being directed at the social workers, and rightly so

Thaedydal wrote: »

Were the caseworkers also mentally ill ?

Are you suggesting that social workers should be in a position to magically divine who is going to kill their child and who isn't. You might say it was obvious that they would have killed their child, but of course it's obvious in hindsight. Social workers are human, they err, they make mistakes, they get overworked, they do their best in a bad situation. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a fan of social workers, but I don't think it is right to try to blame them for anything that goes wrong.

Why this obsession with trying to blame someone - anyone - whenever a tragedy happens?

eth0_

Thaedydal wrote: »

Were the caseworkers also mentally ill ?

What on earth has that got to do with it?

The caseworkers were woefully inept at their jobs, either because of a lack of caring or because communication between soc services/police/teachers/doctors is dreadful in England.

Dudess

mirwillbeback wrote: »

A lot of blame is being directed at the social workers, and rightly so

It's not right that a lot of blame is directed at them - ultimately there are three specific people responsible for that little boy's death (one moreso than the others) and none of them are social workers... it is fair enough though for people to be concerned about the quality of child protection in Haringey, considering this is the second such tragedy in recent years in that jurisdiction.

what gets me is that they are all being named and shamed whilst the parent and bf cannot be named for legal reasons.

Any idea why they aren't being named? It's not because they're getting "special treatment", the identities of child killers are usually publicised... it's to protect the identities of the dead child's siblings. Although with their brother's image all over the media, I can't see how that will work. The mother and the two yobs have also been named on countless websites.

In my view, they should be named, shamed and released and let the public give them justice. I think they should be tortured themselves and executed.

There's a difference between a personal view and what's an appropriate course of action by a government/legal system/justice system. It would be very scary indeed if the state were awarded the power to torture/kill people - no matter what crime they commit.
Our emotions and desire for revenge have to be separated from the justice system. It needs to be approached in a calm, rational manner instead of purely taking the mob's bloodlust into consideration.
Having said that, if the little boy's biological father got his revenge on them, I'd consider congratulations to be in order. But it's not the angry mob's business at all. Their selfish bloodlust does the poor little guy absolutely no justice.
And despite the requests that the mother and her boyfriend not be named, in order to protect the baby's siblings, there are still several internet warriors doing so - Facebook revenge groups and the like. :rolleyes: That just goes to show you how they're more concerned about satisfying their need for vengeance than anything else - the fact that they wouldn't even respect something designed to protect Baby P's brothers and sisters... :mad:

People like that have no use to society, in my view the can never make amends. What is the point of them being kept in captivity to live an even more worthless life, all the while their meals and accomaodation being paid by deductions made to your working wage.

I'd prefer my taxes to pay towards them being caged for life rather than towards state sanctioned execution. And from another point of view, I'd prefer them to grow old - if they're executed, that's it. No more punishment.

the time has come to have severe penalties for such evil.

What do you mean "the time has come"?

eth0_ wrote: »

Nice one. Making a proclamation like that without knowing the facts.
There's no doubt what they did was disgusting and they should go to jail for it, but one or all may be seriously mentally ill.

Possibly - very probably. Would that make me feel a shred of sympathy for them? Absolutely not. And maybe they're not mentally ill at all, maybe they're just cruel ****ers. So they've had sh1tty lives of squalour. Boo hoo. So have COUNTLESS others.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of mental disability too - as a result of chromosomal deficiencies. And serious lack of brain use.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you suggesting that social workers should be in a position to magically divine who is going to kill their child and who isn't. You might say it was obvious that they would have killed their child, but of course it's obvious in hindsight. Social workers are human, they err, they make mistakes, they get overworked, they do their best in a bad situation. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a fan of social workers, but I don't think it is right to try to blame them for anything that goes wrong.

The problem with working day in day out in godforsaken communities like this, is your idea of what constitutes a "good home" drops considerably in standard. Constant exposure to this is bound to skew reality for you. Add to this a level of jadedness and worldweariness which kick in after a while for many people who originally probably wanted to make a difference to deprived communities. I worked in housing, I saw it in my colleagues who were there a number of years. Horrible stories wouldn't even lead to a raised eyebrow among them. Bad pay, bad working conditions, acres of bureaucracy... these all just add to the resentment.
There's even an "ignore list" system (in the UK anyway) which I find particularly shocking. In another horrific abuse case, child protection officials were so scared of the parents (who actually attacked them a couple of times) that they felt they had no choice but to put them on this "ignore list". So if neighbours alerted them to screams, they wouldn't do anything. That chills my blood. On one occasion (before the household was put on the ignore list) the social worker saw the little girl passed out on the ground. When she asked what was going on, she was physically ejected from the house. And nothing was done after that because the safety of the officials was put before the safety of the child. So instead of implementing a system whereby child protection workers would be protected themselves, that child was left in hell. And she died, aged 2 and a half. http://www.fassit.co.uk/ainlee_labonte.htm

Indifference - well we all know a number of examples of what that's led to...

Why this obsession with trying to blame someone - anyone - whenever a tragedy happens?

Look up Lisa Arthurworrey, the social worker who was assigned with keeping an eye on Victoria Climbié. That poor woman... the way she was scapegoated was grotesque.

I do think there appears to be something rotten in the state of British child protection though. And I doubt the child protection model here is much different. However the individual social workers have a very tough job... it's the bureaucratic pen-pushers I'd have more of a problem with. The whistleblower in this current case - she too was subjected to bully tactics when she voiced concerns about Baby P.

catherinesara

Baby P case has brought to light what many already knew - that child protection workers steer clear of certain families because of fear for their own safety.

The down side of this is sometimes innocent quiet families are targeted instead to make up the quotas of children to be placed in care or forced into adoption.

There is little demand for babies like Baby P in adoption, because many adopters want cute, healthy, clever children, not damaged ones, who may disrupt and break their family up as well.

A lot has to do with money.

Also, and this is just my opinion- but most mothers in UK have been working since the war years, and children have in many cases been deprived of proper love and care, due to tired mothers and they not being there for the children.

Down through the generations women - new mothers have little idea how to parent fully, because they have not experienced this, as it was not passed down to them.

One cannot give Love unless one has received it to know what it feels like.

Also, mothers who have to go to work tend not to bond fully with their babies, because the pain of separation on returning to work is too much, so they do not bond out of fear, and naturally the baby and the mother suffer.

It is odd too that society blames the mother always for failure to protect, when in some cases she is not really able, as she is beaten down, tired, exhausted, living in a depressing place like London, with no hope of ever escaping, as the elite love to keep the poor down and in their place in UK.

They will moan about the poor, but are not provding enough support for them to have any chance of escape from the poverty trap.

But, other cases are now coming to light, which have been kept secret from the public deliberately, because it is going to expose how some Local Authorities knowingly placed children in the care of mentally ill carers, failed foster carers, drug dealers, paedophile rings, prostitution rings, etc and did absolutely nothing, except document it all.

One wonders was it an experiment to see how much trauma the children could handle before breaking and suffering mental problems too.

In the cases I deal with, no healing care was offered to the children raped and abused in care, and some have now gone on to rape and abuse others.

These abused adults are bitter and hurt individuals angry at the adults who claim to protect them, but in fact handed them to real abusers, and with 20,000 children per year disappearing from the care system- something is wrong, because children do not run away from Love and kindness.

Dudess

Jeez Catherine, that is depressing.

johnnyskeleton

catherinesara wrote: »

There is little demand for babies like Baby P in adoption, because many adopters want cute, healthy, clever children, not damaged ones, who may disrupt and break their family up as well.

I've mentioned this before in Humanities and have been slated for it.

catherinesara wrote: »

Also, and this is just my opinion- but most mothers in UK have been working since the war years, and children have in many cases been deprived of proper love and care, due to tired mothers and they not being there for the children.

If you're taking a jibe at working mothers though, I'll have none of it. If most mothers work, but only a tiny minority of children are deprived, then the issue is not the mother having a job.

catherinesara wrote: »

Also, mothers who have to go to work tend not to bond fully with their babies, because the pain of separation on returning to work is too much, so they do not bond out of fear, and naturally the baby and the mother suffer.

You could also argue the opposite, that babies who have a stay at home mother will grow up having no respect for her as a person and, if the child is female, may grow up with a feeling of insecurity in entering the workforce.

metrovelvet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you're taking a jibe at working mothers though, I'll have none of it. If most mothers work, but only a tiny minority of children are deprived, then the issue is not the mother having a job.

You could also argue the opposite, that babies who have a stay at home mother will grow up having no respect for her as a person and, if the child is female, may grow up with a feeling of insecurity in entering the workforce.

You could also argue that the stay at home mothers are as exhausted as the ones who go to work. Its pretty tiring work, parenting, especially for most of us who dont have two nannies and a night nurse.

I dont know how much going to work or staying at home affects the respect a child will have for a parent. It has all to do with the parent and how s/he interacts with the child imo. And before the 1970's most people did grow up with their mother at home, I would not assume that they had any more insecurity entering the workforce than kids today do, who do have mothers in the workforce.

Eitherway its not reaally fair to point to either as a cause for damage or delinquency, as in either circumstance you can find neglect: if the stay at home parent isnt doing their job or if the nanny the working mother hires isnt doing hers.

I have also noticed there is no space for the father to be criticized here. What about him? Not just in the Baby P case but in others too?

stovelid

I agree: many stay-at-home mums are too tired to do anything but put children in front of DVDs. In many cases, being a full-time mother is far more tiring and time-consuming than an acknowledged job, something I have only apprenticed recently.

It's too simplistic to apportion blame to the destruction of some pre-war nuclear family ideal.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of cases of poverty/neglect involve mothers/fathers who are actually present at home, but for a number of reasons, are neglectful.

sam34

catherinesara wrote: »

But, other cases are now coming to light, which have been kept secret from the public deliberately, because it is going to expose how some Local Authorities knowingly placed children in the care of mentally ill carers, failed foster carers, drug dealers, paedophile rings, prostitution rings, etc and did absolutely nothing, except document it all.

One wonders was it an experiment to see how much trauma the children could handle before breaking and suffering mental problems too.
QUOTE]

can i clarify - are you suggesting that authorities knowingly and deliberately placed children in the care of paedophiles?

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

Eitherway its not reaally fair to point to either as a cause for damage or delinquency, as in either circumstance you can find neglect: if the stay at home parent isnt doing their job or if the nanny the working mother hires isnt doing hers.

I didn't, catherinesara made that point and I disagreed.

metrovelvet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I didn't, catherinesara made that point and I disagreed.

^ I know, I was disagreeing with both of you. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that the children of stay at home parents were somehow growing up more insecure. I realise you were positing a hypothetical counter argument and not taking a position yourself. Apologies.

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I know, I was disagreeing with both of you. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that the children of stay at home parents were somehow growing up more insecure. I realise you were positing a hypothetical counter argument and not taking a position yourself. Apologies.

No problem, I probably should have been clearer. I guess I find the idea that working mothers tend not to bond with their children to be a bizzare assertion.

metrovelvet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No problem, I probably should have been clearer. I guess I find the idea that working mothers tend not to bond with their children to be a bizzare assertion.

It depends on how much they are working and how soon they go back to work. Theoretically the intense bonding happens in the first few months. But even beyond that, if you are working full time and have two nannies and a night nurse, as some couples do, probably more common in the US than Ireland, then lets face it you are not going to bond with the child.

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

It depends on how much they are working and how soon they go back to work. Theoretically the intense bonding happens in the first few months. But even beyond that, if you are working full time and have two nannies and a night nurse, as some couples do, probably more common in the US than Ireland, then lets face it you are not going to bond with the child.

This idea seems completely alien to me, and I have to disagree. You don't have to spend every waking moment with your child to bond with him or her.

metrovelvet

^ No but you do have to spend more than a few minutes a day with them. If you get home at 8pm and go to work at 8 or 9 am, you are not going to see your child.

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ No but you do have to spend more than a few minutes a day with them. If you get home at 8pm and go to work at 8 or 9 am, you are not going to see your child.

Work life balance really. I guess people who work 12 or more hours a day 7 days a week might not bond with their children. Some mothers manage to have a healthy relationship with their child and also hold down a very busy successful career. I would accept though that it is probably better to only work 9-5 or flexi time.

metrovelvet

^ Right. Thats why I said it depends on how much they are working.

johnnyskeleton

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Right. Thats why I said it depends on how much they are working.

So we're agreed then. The last few posts have been pretty strange - I think we have been saying the same thing in different ways.:)

Livvie

mirwillbeback wrote: »

Have just finished reading an article about this poor child in the UK and was wondering what people's opinions are.
A lot of blame is being directed at the social workers, and rightly so - but what gets me is that they are all being named and shamed whilst the parent and bf cannot be named for legal reasons.
In my view, they should be named, shamed and released, and let the public give them justice. I think they should be tortured themselves and executed.
People like that have no use to society, in my view the can never make amends. What is the point of them being kept in captivity to live an even more worthless life, all the while their meals and accomaodation being paid by deductions made to your working wage.
It disgusts me, and the time has come to have severe penalties for such evil.
Thoughts?

I assume you wrote this in the heat of the moment? It's a perfectly reasonable reaction imo - but when the impact of the sheer awfulness wears off, I think most people would not want to go down the anger road. When I read about the case I had all those feelings - I just felt so much rage at the inhumanity, but when it comes down to it, I'm not as bad as those dregs. Every time I read these things, I think that the death penalty should be restored, but in the cold light of day, I don't think I would want that. There is something abhorrent about a calculated execution, no matter how much we think someone deserves it.

Of course, this leads to the question, how do you deal with these people? There has to be a deterrent first and foremost, but anyone guilty of child abuse does need to be punished and kept away from a decent society.

I don't know why they weren't named - others in similar circumstances have been.

Very emotive subject.

Dudess

Livvie wrote: »

I don't know why they weren't named - others in similar circumstances have been.

To protect his siblings' identity.

tallaght01

catherinesara wrote: »

Baby P case has brought to light what many already knew - that child protection workers steer clear of certain families because of fear for their own safety.

.

I don't think that's true at all.

I also don't think the public believes it. I worked in child protection until recently. You risk your ass all the time, but that's the job.

The idea of us deciding not to look into a case out of fear for ourselves is simply not based in reality. The police will accompany child protection workers if asked. they're very accommodating for this.

If people had any idea of how many child protection cases come into an average social work department in a week, they'd be amazed. I was always surprised that more kids don't run into serious trouble.

Problem is the public only cares when the media decides the should. You never hear a peep about under-resourcing at any other time.

Plus there are kids who may not die, but are brain damaged or get horrific physical injuries all the time, that no-one takes an notice of.

I think the social workers do a very good job, considering the disaster ones that they're departments are.

Livvie

Dudess wrote: »

To protect his siblings' identity.

Is that the right thing, do you think? Are other children still being cared for by family, or have they been fostered?

It's not something I've noticed before - I would have sworn that other child killers had been named even if there were other children. But maybe it's something that just hasn't registered before.

Dudess

Livvie wrote: »

Is that the right thing, do you think?

Well it doesn't matter what I think. And of course it's the right thing if that's what has been requested.

Are other children still being cared for by family, or have they been fostered?

I don't know.

It's not something I've noticed before - I would have sworn that other child killers had been named even if there were other children.

Oh they have - and in those cases there obviously wasn't a request for them to be kept anonymous.
I don't know who put in the request for Baby P's anonymity. But I get the feeling people think his killers are getting special treatment, protection etc. Hardly. Why the hell would anyone want to protect those animals?
I also get the impression people feel an injustice has been done because they haven't been named and shamed. But somebody wanted Baby P's siblings to be protected and that should be respected. Which is more important - keeping the other children unidentified or satisfying public curiosity?

Livvie

Dudess wrote: »

. Which is more important - keeping the other children unidentified or satisfying public curiosity?

That's a very valid point, although from my own point of view I was never exactly curious as to their identity - I was more concerned about the fact that it seemed they were being protected.

I'm afraid that when I read what happened to that poor baby, my inherent savage instincts kind of took over, and I wanted them to suffer, and being named and shamed was part of that.

Now that the heat of that moment has died down, I don't need to actually see justice being done, as long as I know that it is.