Mother jailed for neglect and assault on her children

melissak wrote: »

Add your reply here.
Are you talking about these called ritual abuse fiasco in England? That was a pretty shocking version of false flag hysteria. 230 or so kids took into care based solely on confirmation bias and hysterisa on the Part of social services. The younger kids actually believed they had been abused because it was put in their heads

That'd be a good example of what I'm talking about, yes, the way that those cases were based upon stereotyping and confirmation bias, sensationalised in the media and creating a moral panic among the public so that they thought they were 'educated' to be able to spot potential abusers. That's how actual cases of abuse often aren't spotted, because they don't fit a profile.

It's made much harder again by the fact that once the family moves to a new location, they go under the radar again, until they come to the attention of social services again, and a new case file is opened, and the new social workers aren't aware of the previous case files. The mother in this case knew what she was doing, but due to stereotyping and confirmation bias, women aren't as commonly thought to be just as capable of abuse and neglect as men are.

melissak

melissak wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

Add your reply here.
Are you talking about these called ritual abuse fiasco in England? That was a pretty shocking version of false flag hysteria. 230 or so kids took into care based solely on confirmation bias and hysterisa on the Part of social services. The younger kids actually believed they had been abused because it was put in their heads

Add your reply here.
This is directed to jack, quoted wrong post

melissak

One eyed Jack wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

Add your reply here.
Are you talking about these called ritual abuse fiasco in England? That was a pretty shocking version of false flag hysteria. 230 or so kids took into care based solely on confirmation bias and hysterisa on the Part of social services. The younger kids actually believed they had been abused because it was put in their heads

PLL

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It disgusts me to think of 7 little kids absolutely traumatised and frightened in their own home with strange drunks walking in and out like it was some sort of half way house, with nobody to give them a hug and a kiss and make them feel loved and like none of what was happening was their fault.

How are they ever going to be okay after that? She's ruined their lives. There is no coming back from that.

They will, hopefully. It won't be easy and they will always find it hard to trust people and feel awkward when people do perfectly normal nice things for them.

Maybe one day if they are healthy and stable enough they will have their own child. One day when that child is about 4 it will climb into bed next to them and say 'Mommy/Daddy you're beautiful, I love you' and in that moment they will realise that they are giving love and happiness to someone else, nurturing them, watching them grow and most of all go to sleep every night knowing that they are safe, not afraid and will never know the pain they did.

It isn't something you can ever forget but you can use it to make the world a better place for other people. Honestly I may not have got hugs and kisses when I needed them or felt safe or loved but it is in the past there is nothing I can do. Now I can get hugs and kisses all the time off my very cheerful daughter. I'm a very ambitious person, I do exceptionally well in exams, I don't want to waste my life but honesty I have the only thing I ever wanted and that is a happy home for my daughter (and her sibling that I'm currently growing). Everything else I achieve from here is a bonus, a cherry on top. I have everything I need now, the people, the security and 10 years ago I was suicidal. So hopefully they will find someone, even if it was one person to understand them, no matter how dysfunctional they may become because of this. That is all we can hope for.

KERSPLAT! wrote:

Are you two still at it!?

Nope. All friends now.

The Raptor

What a horrible woman. How anyone can do that to small kids. Horrible, rotten, sad excuse of a human being.

FortySeven

bubblypop wrote: »

Forty seven, I do agree with you to an extent. There is a big problem in this country because there is a huge turnover of social workers.
We have mandatory reporting of child protection incidents, & it should work, because it should follow the family around. This is relatively recent, but it does seem to work well to an extent.
Social workers have such a hard job, they all start with great intentions, they all want to help. Then they start, & their workload is horrendously large. Impossible I would think, they can't physically do everything they are supposed to.
Which ends up with social workers becoming burnt out, dissolutioned & trying to ' cover their own ass' and eventually leaving, in a lot of cases.

I wouldn't be a social worker for any money. They are over stretched, under resourced & constantly looking over their shoulder trying to ' cover their own ass'

The country needs to put money into these services. We need to at least double the social workers in this country. Maybe then, any referrals they receive, they might have time to investigate cases correctly.

And anything we can learn about these types of cases, can only assist going forward.

Agreed. If only the money ever made it to frontline servixes.

Forty seven, I do agree with you to an extent. There is a big problem in this country because there is a huge turnover of social workers.
We have mandatory reporting of child protection incidents, & it should work, because it should follow the family around. This is relatively recent, but it does seem to work well to an extent.
Social workers have such a hard job, they all start with great intentions, they all want to help. Then they start, & their workload is horrendously large. Impossible I would think, they can't physically do everything they are supposed to.
Which ends up with social workers becoming burnt out, dissolutioned & trying to ' cover their own ass' and eventually leaving, in a lot of cases.

I wouldn't be a social worker for any money. They are over stretched, under resourced & constantly looking over their shoulder trying to ' cover their own ass'

The country needs to put money into these services. We need to at least double the social workers in this country. Maybe then, any referrals they receive, they might have time to investigate cases correctly.

And anything we can learn about these types of cases, can only assist going forward.

FortySeven

bubblypop wrote: »

El duderino,
I think jack or whatever the name is, just likes to argue with anyone they can.
No one who thinks normally could think that studying past abuse cases could in no way assist in future child protection.
Obviously anyone with a sane understanding brain realises than any little help is advantageous in child protection.
I wouldn't bother trying to educate jack anymore.

The main issue in this case and many others is not that they were missed. It was a lack of communication between agencies. Relocation is common in child abuse cases as it was in my own. I was in 8 different schools before I was taken into care and had moved the length and breadth of the uk.

The study of risk factors does of course identify some abuse but in my own case none of the common factors would have been evident. It is still a valuable tool but I believe compulsory parenting clases at pregnancy would be much more resource efficient than trying to deal with the issue later.

I'm going to say something here that will no doubt cause some consternation but it is my opinion based upon my experience both in the care of and later working among civil servants.

They don't work. Not like those in the private sector. They invariably don't do a 39 hour week. They spend as much time doing pointless training courses as they do working. They take more breaks than any private sector employee and their systems and working practices are incredibly inneficient and outdated and this causes decision making to be ponderous and over complicated.

There is way too much what if? And not enough decisive action. Communication between agencies is obstructive and disjointed. There is always someone off sick that causes a delay and nobody picking up their workload and turnover of staff on the frontline is huge, largely due to the administrative nightmare they are trying to operate in being seemingly geared towards making their job as difficult as possible.

The civil service needs root and branch reform. Too many studies looking at what mistakes were made, not enough proactive action.

El duderino,
I think jack or whatever the name is, just likes to argue with anyone they can.
No one who thinks normally could think that studying past abuse cases could in no way assist in future child protection.
Obviously anyone with a sane understanding brain realises than any little help is advantageous in child protection.
I wouldn't bother trying to educate jack anymore.

KERSPLAT!

Are you two still at it!?

One eyed Jack wrote:

They are risk factors, in which case either abuse is taking place, or it isn't. What I'm trying to get across is that the profiles are useless in terms of identifying potential victims, or potential perpetrators, because there is no way that it can actually be predicted whether someone will become a victim, and there's no way of knowing whether someone will become an abuser. That's what I mean when I talk about profiling being useless in terms of identifying other people's future potential as either a victim, or a perpetrator. Any statistics we can gather is based upon known data, from which we can formulate probabilities, and as you say identify known potential risk factors. That's not prediction, it's correlation.

You're going to have to put the goalposts down at some point. You'll break your back picking them up and moving them every other post.

You're mistaking lack of perfection with lack of utility.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Sure, I do understand that, but the point I'm trying to make is that in those cases, the risks have already been identified. The point I'm making is that often, we miss signs because we don't know what we haven't any knowledge of. How can we?

Again not perfect but not useless.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I get how it works, I do. It's based upon assessment of known risk factors which have been determined by correlations drawn from previous cases. That's why it's always changing and never ending, and trying to draw profiles from it, while I can understand why people say it's worth trying and it's useful and it's educating people and all the rest of it, it still can not predict with any degree of accuracy those people who have not already been identified as being at risk of abuse/abusing, and it certainly has no accuracy in predicting potential victims/abusers. If it had, detection rates would be a lot higher than they are, and intervention would happen much sooner. The fact is that by using profiling/stereotyping, you're going to miss out on signs that don't already fit what is usually a very specific profile.

Lack of perfection does not = lack of utility.

It's not a very specific profile. I don't work on the field but I know that it's not very soecific at all. It's as individual as family dynamics, with some overarching common traits.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I get why people are hesitant, but what I'm saying is that because of stereotyping - cases all too often go undetected, or aren't taken seriously enough, and all too often go unreported, because the persons involved don't fit the stereotypical profile. They're able to hide it purposely, so that it goes undetected! There's no model, no amount of education, no amount of training, can account for that level of deception. That's who you're dependent upon to inform your research. A person so skilled at deception and manipulation that they can deceive professionals with experience, and control children to the point where they may never reveal their abuse.

I'm about to make up numbers for illustrative purposes. Imagine that 1% of parents are abusive. If you accused 100 parents at random, you would correctly identify 1 abusive patent on average. Imagine if you weight the sample in favour of drug addicted parents, then in favour of parents who are out of the house a lot of the time, then in favour of people who have a history of abuse themselves. Now imagine that you pick 100 parents who fit that very basic profile and 7% of them are abusive parents. The profile has predicted abusive parents at 7 times the rate of chance. That's massive predictive power BUT, there's no way you can go around accusing people with a 7% success rate because of basic rights of parents. And 93/100 parents would sue the backside off you. In that case the model has predictive power.

Now if you see indicative behaviours in the child's behaviour with bruises etc. Now you can start to put a case together.

There's a strange duality here where you seem to think the research and evidence gathering side is futile AND bemoan the fact that social services dont act more efficiently, even though they act on the research and evidence gathered.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I'm afraid El_Duderino you give me far too much credit

A real maverick (I'm picturing Dirty Harry slamming the desk saying 'I don't play be the rules but by god I get results').

I've said about all I have to say on the issue. No point repeating ourselves. Good chat cheers.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok instead of putting words in your mouth I'll ask you directly whay you think about those factors I mentioned -the 2 from this specific case and the other more general ones. What say you? Are they in fact risk factors?

They are risk factors, in which case either abuse is taking place, or it isn't. What I'm trying to get across is that the profiles are useless in terms of identifying potential victims, or potential perpetrators, because there is no way that it can actually be predicted whether someone will become a victim, and there's no way of knowing whether someone will become an abuser. That's what I mean when I talk about profiling being useless in terms of identifying other people's future potential as either a victim, or a perpetrator. Any statistics we can gather is based upon known data, from which we can formulate probabilities, and as you say identify known potential risk factors. That's not prediction, it's correlation.

Of course they can. They are used every day to protect children. There's no way you don't understand that. We don't wait until we see a child being abused. We act on risk factors.

Sure, I do understand that, but the point I'm trying to make is that in those cases, the risks have already been identified. The point I'm making is that often, we miss signs because we don't know what we haven't any knowledge of. How can we?

The case in this instance is a good example of what I'm trying to say. I'm working off the assumption that the social workers involved were on top of their game, following guidelines and best practices and so on, they had identified the family as being at risk, but - were it not for an unscheduled visit, purely by chance, they would never have discovered the extent of the abuse and it could have gone on for much longer. They couldn't possibly have predicted the extent of the abuse, because it was being kept hidden from them! However it was being hidden from them, was outside the scope of whatever model they were working off. It went undetected. They were doing their jobs, but the abuse was still able to be kept hidden from them, and it was only after the children were taken into care that the extent of the abuse came to light!

Yes it's stereotyping/profiling/heuristics based on fact. It's a fact that children of drug addicts are more likely to experience abuse than children of non drug addicts- all other factors being equal. Therefore drug addicted parents represent an elevated risk for children. That's prospective. How are you not getting this? It's really simple. All the other factors I mentioned in the last post also represent elevated risk of abuse.

I get how it works, I do. It's based upon assessment of known risk factors which have been determined by correlations drawn from previous cases. That's why it's always changing and never ending, and trying to draw profiles from it, while I can understand why people say it's worth trying and it's useful and it's educating people and all the rest of it, it still can not predict with any degree of accuracy those people who have not already been identified as being at risk of abuse/abusing, and it certainly has no accuracy in predicting potential victims/abusers. If it had, detection rates would be a lot higher than they are, and intervention would happen much sooner. The fact is that by using profiling/stereotyping, you're going to miss out on signs that don't already fit what is usually a very specific profile.

Yes of course. I saw it happen with my own mother in her school. She had suspicions based on the risks she observed. But you can't make a claim unless it can me substanciated or else it's an unsubstantiated claim of abuse against a parent. That can cost you your job, your career, can cost an innocent parent their child and their reputation and could be detrimental to the child. That's one reason why people hesitate. My mother was right in that instance but she couldn't act until she could substanciate a claim that the child was at serious risk.

I get why people are hesitant, but what I'm saying is that because of stereotyping - cases all too often go undetected, or aren't taken seriously enough, and all too often go unreported, because the persons involved don't fit the stereotypical profile. They're able to hide it purposely, so that it goes undetected! There's no model, no amount of education, no amount of training, can account for that level of deception. That's who you're dependent upon to inform your research. A person so skilled at deception and manipulation that they can deceive professionals with experience, and control children to the point where they may never reveal their abuse.

If you were a teacher, would you keep an honest eye out for risk factors like a responsible adult? (No need to have a sh1t fit at every bruise) I suspect you would because the opinion you're putting forward is stupid (zero predictive power of profiles) but I don't think you're stupid. Tell me you would at least follow the guidelines if you were in loco parentis.

The profiles are imperfect at predicting abuse, not useless.

I'm afraid El_Duderino you give me far too much credit

I'm not known for following guidelines and best practices and bureaucracy. It's just not the way I do things. I understand of course that guidelines, education, best practice and procedures are all necessary parts of the job, I understand why people base their judgement on stereotypes, but statistics can only give you information after the fact, based upon recorded evidence. They just don't work at the level of individual assessment IMO. I just think that by putting individuals in boxes based upon stereotypes, you're going to miss out on the individual signs.

One eyed Jack wrote:

No, I would say you were trying to put words in my mouth regarding things I never said. What I said was that I personally think profiling specifically relating to child abuse cases is unreliable, and I personally don't believe it is possible to come up with a model that would enable us to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

Ok instead of putting words in your mouth I'll ask you directly whay you think about those factors I mentioned -the 2 from this specific case and the other more general ones. What say you? Are they in fact risk factors?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Again, that's not actually what I said ay all. I said they cannot be used to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims, or potential abusers.

Of course they can. They are used every day to protect children. There's no way you don't understand that. We don't wait until we see a child being abused. We act on risk factors.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Profiling IMO, is completely useless in predicting potential victims or abusers, is what I said. I said the above because I recognise that not everyone is going to agree with me that profiling serves no purpose in prediction, because it's based upon retrospective analysis and identifying common behaviours, attitudes and circumstances. It's basically stereotyping by another name. Anything which falls outside that stereotype is never flagged, because it's never identified in order to be flagged in the first place. In this particular case, you're applying flags retrospectively to fit the model, so therefore the model must be justified.

Yes it's stereotyping/profiling/heuristics based on fact. It's a fact that children of drug addicts are more likely to experience abuse than children of non drug addicts- all other factors being equal. Therefore drug addicted parents represent an elevated risk for children. That's prospective. How are you not getting this? It's really simple. All the other factors I mentioned in the last post also represent elevated risk of abuse.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Does it not make you wonder at all how anyone involved in the case or anyone who had any interaction with the family involved missed all the identifiers that you're now able to apply retrospectively?

Yes of course. I saw it happen with my own mother in her school. She had suspicions based on the risks she observed. But you can't make a claim unless it can me substanciated or else it's an unsubstantiated claim of abuse against a parent. That can cost you your job, your career, can cost an innocent parent their child and their reputation and could be detrimental to the child. That's one reason why people hesitate. My mother was right in that instance but she couldn't act until she could substanciate a claim that the child was at serious risk.

If you were a teacher, would you keep an honest eye out for risk factors like a responsible adult? (No need to have a sh1t fit at every bruise) I suspect you would because the opinion you're putting forward is stupid (zero predictive power of profiles) but I don't think you're stupid. Tell me you would at least follow the guidelines if you were in loco parentis.

The profiles are imperfect at predicting abuse, not useless.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you have a very confused idea of what we're talking about. I bet if I told you some of the risk factors like: drug addicted patents and having strange men in the house (examples from this case), child changing behaviour abruptly such as becoming withdrawn or lashing out, getting mysterious bruises in particular parts of the body or showing inappropriate sexualised behaviour or knowledge you would say 'sure those are obvious' or 'those are meaningless'. In either case you would show your misunderstanding of what we're talking about. Those risk factors or 'red flags' are basic elements in a risk profile.

No, I would say you were trying to put words in my mouth regarding things I never said. What I said was that I personally think profiling specifically relating to child abuse cases is unreliable, and I personally don't believe it is possible to come up with a model that would enable us to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

I think you're right on this point. You're at odds with One Eyed Jack here as they don't believe risk profiles or red flags can be used with any degree of accuracy.

Again, that's not actually what I said ay all. I said they cannot be used to predict with any degree of accuracy potential victims, or potential abusers.

You're back on the fence here by saying some families will not for the profile. I thought here was no usable profile according to you. That's why I asked you whether you think profiling is completely useless or just not 100% accurate.

Of course profiles are useful, to varying degrees and in all walks of life. Do you really think they have no accuracy in this case?

Profiling IMO, is completely useless in predicting potential victims or abusers, is what I said. I said the above because I recognise that not everyone is going to agree with me that profiling serves no purpose in prediction, because it's based upon retrospective analysis and identifying common behaviours, attitudes and circumstances. It's basically stereotyping by another name. Anything which falls outside that stereotype is never flagged, because it's never identified in order to be flagged in the first place. In this particular case, you're applying flags retrospectively to fit the model, so therefore the model must be justified.

Does it not make you wonder at all how anyone involved in the case or anyone who had any interaction with the family involved missed all the identifiers that you're now able to apply retrospectively?

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

I think you have a very confused idea of what we're talking about. I bet if I told you some of the risk factors like: drug addicted patents and having strange men in the house (examples from this case), child changing behaviour abruptly such as becoming withdrawn or lashing out, getting mysterious bruises in particular parts of the body or showing inappropriate sexualised behaviour or knowledge you would say 'sure those are obvious' or 'those are meaningless'. In either case you would show your misunderstanding of what we're talking about. Those risk factors or 'red flags' are basic elements in a risk profile.

eviltwin wrote:

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

I think you're right on this point. You're at odds with One Eyed Jack here as they don't believe risk profiles or red flags can be used with any degree of accuracy.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I understand the whole idea of profiling and why it's done to identify families that need support, but plenty of families that don't appear to be in need of support don't get red flagged because they don't fit the profile. That's where the whole idea of nobody knowing what goes on behind closed doors, or someone didn't fit 'the profile' comes in. Because it simply doesn't work.

You're back on the fence here by saying some families will not for the profile. I thought here was no usable profile according to you. That's why I asked you whether you think profiling is completely useless or just not 100% accurate.

Of course profiles are useful, to varying degrees and in all walks of life. Do you really think they have no accuracy in this case?

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

I understand the whole idea of profiling and why it's done to identify families that need support, but plenty of families that don't appear to be in need of support don't get red flagged because they don't fit the profile. That's where the whole idea of nobody knowing what goes on behind closed doors, or someone didn't fit 'the profile' comes in. Because it simply doesn't work.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

Somehow I doubt there was any 'motivation' as you and I understand it at play at all.

I would suspect that this woman was raised similarly to how she raised her own kids, that this neglect and lack of love and care was a theme throughout her own childhood. This, in other words, was what passed for 'normal' in her life.

The very, very, vast majority of people who are abused go on to become wonderful adults, and loving and caring parents. I would imagine they have some greater insight, some inner reserve of empathy and intelligence that motivates them to never repeat the mistakes of their own parents. You can see it on this thread.

Some don't break the cycle though. I think finding out what the differences are between the two outcomes is important in preventing, identifying, and treating both the victims and abusers. Maybe they just don't have the inner resources to overcome the damage to the same extent as most. Maybe some people are just 'badder' or more selfish and don't want to make the effort to change the pattern. Maybe some are in the throes of an engulfing addiction that makes them powerless to act positively.

It's a human reaction to want people who've hurt kids to suffer commensurate with the pain they've caused. It's much more valuable in the long run to find out why though. We as a society owe it to future kids to find out.

bubblypop wrote: »

You are dead right.
Feck them all, throw away the keys & sit & wait until abuse and neglect occurs then repeat.

You don't actually believe that though, not that it's even close to any interpretation of what I said.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

You'd be surprised how many abusers have red flags. It probably won't stop that abuse happening but it might help target what families need support or intervention. It's hard to quantify, if I have potential to abuse my children but I'm supported by the system and don't abuse them how do we know it's worked? But it's worth trying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

You are dead right.
Feck them all, throw away the keys & sit & wait until abuse and neglect occurs then repeat.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

Well as we're specifically talking about perpetrators of child abuse, I'm saying that profiling is useless. I know why researchers investigate cases, but profiling itself is full of confirmation bias. I personally don't believe it's actually possible to create a model that would predict with any degree of accuracy, either potential victims of child abuse, or potential perpetrators of child abuse.

One eyed Jack wrote:

The methodology of profiling itself is flawed, because as El Durino points out - it is based on retrospective analysis of past experiences. It doesn't allow for anything which hasn't been experienced before that point.

Are you making a point about all profiling being useless or do you think it's specific to child abuse?

Do you think it's useless because they can't make a 100% reliable profile? Or do you think it's completely useless?

Vandango

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Wouldn't even be able to read that

Same here, some links you just know will be too disturbing to click on.

bubblypop wrote: »

I assume you don't have experience based on what you are posting, because if you did you would understand that it is possible to flag certain behaviours.

If you call 'flagging certain behaviours' making assumptions about people based upon preconceptions, then yes, it's absolutely possible to do that. Whether it's actually reliable or not is the question. I say that it isn't, you disagree. The success rate in profiling is about the same as that in astrology.

The methodology of profiling itself is flawed, because as El Durino points out - it is based on retrospective analysis of past experiences. It doesn't allow for anything which hasn't been experienced before that point.

I'm not sure why you think education for people working with children & their parents would result in mass hysteria!
Education would clearly result in the opposite.

Except it hasn't resulted in the opposite, and this has been demonstrated time and time again by the very fact that misconceptions based upon stereotypes still exist among people working in social care, among law enforcement, and among the general public.

I'm certainly not going around society looking at everyone as potential abusers, but I would hope that given education & past experiences I would be able to flag any questionable behaviour, that would warrant further investigation.

Exactly my point - you're flagging behaviours as questionable, based upon your preconceptions which have been informed by being told what to look out for, so often you will miss the signs that are staring you in the face so to speak.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't examine cases like this to ascertain all factors?

I'm saying that it's pointless trying to ascertain why the mother in this case did what she did, because you're unlikely ever to ascertain their motivation. Perpetrators don't make for very reliable sources of information that could help identify the motivations of other perpetrators.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't take your assumption as an insult at all, because it demonstrates my point perfectly - based upon your preconceptions, you assume I don't have a lot of experience in child protection issues.

I simply think it's wrong to say that everyone are potential child abusers, because then you'll start seeing signs that aren't there, assuming the worst of innocent people, and missing the signs that someone is an actual abuser, which can only be determined on an individual basis, without your judgement being informed by preconceptions and whether or not an individual fits a profile that is based on other people's past behaviour.

That's how society has gotten to a point where we have mass hysteria based upon stereotypes, yet we miss the stuff that happens under our own noses.

I assume you don't have experience based on what you are posting, because if you did you would understand that it is possible to flag certain behaviours.
I'm not sure why you think education for people working with children & their parents would result in mass hysteria!
Education would clearly result in the opposite.

I'm certainly not going around society looking at everyone as potential abusers, but I would hope that given education & past experiences I would be able to flag any questionable behaviour, that would warrant further investigation.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't examine cases like this to ascertain all factors?

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm going to guess that you dont have a lot of experience in child protection issues, I don't mean that to sound insulting.
Everyone are potential abusers, if that's the way you want to put it.

Gathering information on child abuse cases does indeed help us to understand why and how this abuse can happen, which in turn helps identify potential abusers.

I wouldn't take your assumption as an insult at all, because it demonstrates my point perfectly - based upon your preconceptions, you assume I don't have a lot of experience in child protection issues.

I simply think it's wrong to say that everyone are potential child abusers, because then you'll start seeing signs that aren't there, assuming the worst of innocent people, and missing the signs that someone is an actual abuser, which can only be determined on an individual basis, without your judgement being informed by preconceptions and whether or not an individual fits a profile that is based on other people's past behaviour.

That's how society has gotten to a point where we have mass hysteria based upon stereotypes, yet we miss the stuff that happens under our own noses.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Have you been a victim of child abuse? During Councelling to get over something someone else did to you, something you had absolutely no control over, one of the steps is dealing with how it made you feel. You don't rationalise their behaviour, you don't make excuses, it doesn't matter what they did. It's the effects of their behaviour that's imprinted on someone else, some defenceless child. It doesn't matter WHY they did it. The end effect is the same whether someone did it because they were mentally ill and off their meds or because they're pure evil.

No. Thankfully I have never experienced any of that. I can see how it could make objectivity impossible for the individual. That's why we don't put a victim on the jury for a similar case.

To you personally maybe it doesn't matter WHY it happened. It might be enough for a victim to get along with their lives. Society DOES need to know why these things happen if it has any intention intervene in future cases and prevent harm.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Do you think that all parents who abuse their kids fit the same profile? You think the warning signs and behaviours are all the same? Nobody knows what's going on behind closed doors. To the outside world they may be the most loving parents. It's not just the raging alcoholics that abuse their children.

If only it were that simple that all cases fit a single profile. But it isn't
It takes painstaking work, pushing the boulder up the hill an inch at a time. Thanks to those people who ask WHY, we now have guidelines to spot potential harm and policies to deal with potential harm once spotted.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't see how you got from being made aware of certain things to look out for, to that actually being useful, unless someone actually does something about what they have observed.

Of course the individual needs to act on the guidelines. My mother was a primary school teacher and she dealt with cases of suspected abuse. It involved weeks of documentation and potentially putting her career on the line to get it done. I'm not sure why you keep repeating the line that someone needs to act because I think we're all in agreement on that.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Yes, educating people on what to look out for in children, and what to do when they suspect a child is being abused. El D's point seems to be more focused on profiling abusers after the fact which gives us nothing by way of predicting or preventing the future behaviour of someone who hasn't come to the attention of researchers.

Profiling by definition means looking at past cases and identifying common traits retrospectively, then applying that knowledge prospectively to prevent harm. You need the knowledge from previous cases to apply it to prevent future cases from happening or at least to minimise harm by intervening as early as posdible

Just to say it before you, of curse someone needs to act on the information.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 'potential abusers', because that implies that everyone falls into the category of a potential abuser. Anyone could be a potential abuser, and my point is that profiling simply does not work, because it is based upon preconceptions and correlations.

That's how abusers are able to avoid detection - because they don't fit preconceived ideas based upon correlations. Therefore, gathering data on abusers after the fact tells us nothing about the potential for someone else to commit abuse.

I'm going to guess that you dont have a lot of experience in child protection issues, I don't mean that to sound insulting.
Everyone are potential abusers, if that's the way you want to put it.

Gathering information on child abuse cases does indeed help us to understand why and how this abuse can happen, which in turn helps identify potential abusers.