News3 mins ago
can any one else.....
24 Answers
work out just when the health care authorities ever going to learn any lessons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northampton shire/7242667.stm
Every time a child dies like this some silly individual fronts up to the cameras and says in an serious voice " all those involved have learned lessons from this tragic event."
Well Why do these poor little souls keeping dieing under the most appauling circumstances.
Will these supposed professionals ever learn anything other than how to get it wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northampton shire/7242667.stm
Every time a child dies like this some silly individual fronts up to the cameras and says in an serious voice " all those involved have learned lessons from this tragic event."
Well Why do these poor little souls keeping dieing under the most appauling circumstances.
Will these supposed professionals ever learn anything other than how to get it wrong?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tigerlily11. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it's not easy to read other people's minds; and no two people are alike, so you can't just say Person A was a killer therefore Person B must be one too. This guy had no previous, so there was no obvious trigger for action. If they'd acted to take the baby away from him without evidence, they'd have been slated by Families Need Fathers. They're going to get stick whatever they do. But these cases are fairly rare in fact (when was the last one?) which suggests that most of them are doing their jobs quietly and efficiently and not getting into the media.
tigerlily11
In a thousand years, there will be children raped/sexually assualted/murdered by their parents or close relatives. It's a horrible thought to have to take on board, but social services/the police/medical professionals simply cannot trap 100% of all cases. Some will slip through.
There are many reasons why this may be the case - individual prejudices of care workers, the fear of misinterpertation of facts, and also - lessons learned by a set of professionals in one care authority may not be picked by another.
In a thousand years, there will be children raped/sexually assualted/murdered by their parents or close relatives. It's a horrible thought to have to take on board, but social services/the police/medical professionals simply cannot trap 100% of all cases. Some will slip through.
There are many reasons why this may be the case - individual prejudices of care workers, the fear of misinterpertation of facts, and also - lessons learned by a set of professionals in one care authority may not be picked by another.
There are failings with the health care proffessionals. A Case in Wales that was resently seen a boyfriend and mother jailed for the Murder of their baby (who had over 50 injuries, some injuries were months old).
The fact that the mothers Aunt reported the abuse four times and pleaded with them to take the child away fearing the childs life. But the responce was that they can't be 'everywhere'!
The Child is now dead!
I don't know what the answer is nor think that it is all their fault. But something is failing!
The fact that the mothers Aunt reported the abuse four times and pleaded with them to take the child away fearing the childs life. But the responce was that they can't be 'everywhere'!
The Child is now dead!
I don't know what the answer is nor think that it is all their fault. But something is failing!
I have to say flip_flop, the very fact that 30 different professionals saw her and none did anything suggests to me that rather than there being 30 neglectful members off staff in a row, perhaps this was an exceptionally hard case to pick up?
I have no doubt that there are neglectful people in positions of responsibility all over the country, but 30 in a row? What are the chances? I'd be far more concerned if only 1 person had seen her.
I have no doubt that there are neglectful people in positions of responsibility all over the country, but 30 in a row? What are the chances? I'd be far more concerned if only 1 person had seen her.
The social services are full of lefty apologists for scum. They make excuses for them, "It's their culture" type thinking. Their opinions are based on huge prejudices. If you are white middle aged and vote Tory then they'll take the kids away at the drop of a hat. Otherwise they'll let any amount of abuse continue. As soon as we stop recruiting these loonies from the job ads of the guardian we'll make some progress.
What I'm saying is jno that, the people we are talking about have completely the wrong priorites. They are the sort of people who will stop an attempted adoption when the people concerned may drink more than 21 units a week or perhaps don't eat 5 veg a day or heaven forbid have non diverse opinions but they'll not consider 5 broken ribs and 30 reports of abuse a good enough reason to take children into care. Often they've ignored countless reports of abuse from neighbours and family. I just don't think they think in straight lines.
It seems no coincidence that Social Services have the initials SS .
The Nazis had an organisation with these self same initials, and had the power of " Nacht & Nebel "
" Night & Mist ". This gave them the right to spirit away any person they selected, who would then disappear from their friends & Family. ( Sound familiar )?
It has been reported that Social services have a Quota to meet in the matter of children being taken into care and adopted.
Consider for a moment. Teenage girls are told that if they have a child out of wedlock, they will be given a dwelling, an income, and sundry financial help.
Should the girl take up this offer and then find that she cannot manage, then the SS swoop and cart off the baby.
It seems that the S S need a constant supply of ******** to justify their existence.
In the matter of a motto for this organisation.
What's the Latin for " Lessons have been learned ".
The Nazis had an organisation with these self same initials, and had the power of " Nacht & Nebel "
" Night & Mist ". This gave them the right to spirit away any person they selected, who would then disappear from their friends & Family. ( Sound familiar )?
It has been reported that Social services have a Quota to meet in the matter of children being taken into care and adopted.
Consider for a moment. Teenage girls are told that if they have a child out of wedlock, they will be given a dwelling, an income, and sundry financial help.
Should the girl take up this offer and then find that she cannot manage, then the SS swoop and cart off the baby.
It seems that the S S need a constant supply of ******** to justify their existence.
In the matter of a motto for this organisation.
What's the Latin for " Lessons have been learned ".
As someone who lives and works in this area of Northamptonshire I feel the need to comment.
As usual jno and Supernick talk a lot of sense
It is true that 30 health workers did have contact with this child and didn't recognise the signs. Health professionals are to a degree trained in child protection but first and foremost they are Doctors, Nurses and Midwifes, and as it has already been stated that all 30 of them 'missed' the signs seems indicative of the difficulties in recognition, not that there are 30 incompetent health workers in that particular health trust. Please remember health workers are not primarily detectors of child abuse.
As for the ridiculous comments about Social Services having quota's I am not sure that I can be bothered to respond to such nonsensical drivel, other than to point out that social workers do not have the power to remove or spirit children away, only the Court has that power.
As usual jno and Supernick talk a lot of sense
It is true that 30 health workers did have contact with this child and didn't recognise the signs. Health professionals are to a degree trained in child protection but first and foremost they are Doctors, Nurses and Midwifes, and as it has already been stated that all 30 of them 'missed' the signs seems indicative of the difficulties in recognition, not that there are 30 incompetent health workers in that particular health trust. Please remember health workers are not primarily detectors of child abuse.
As for the ridiculous comments about Social Services having quota's I am not sure that I can be bothered to respond to such nonsensical drivel, other than to point out that social workers do not have the power to remove or spirit children away, only the Court has that power.
I worked for 20 months as an Admin Officer for Children, Schools, and Families and it opened my eyes and changed my opinion of Social Workers for ever.
Once anyone has worked with all the varieties of workers, as I have, they would understand how untrue and laughable all the derogatory comments above. They are extremely hard-working , caring, and have to work with-in an ever-decreasing budget. They also have their hands tied by rules and regulations passed down from the ODPM.
Once anyone has worked with all the varieties of workers, as I have, they would understand how untrue and laughable all the derogatory comments above. They are extremely hard-working , caring, and have to work with-in an ever-decreasing budget. They also have their hands tied by rules and regulations passed down from the ODPM.
Ruby I to live in the Northampton area and they are not the only area who seem to have a problem with this.
30 people missed the signs. Come on, your not telling me that 30 grown adults who are well trained professionals didn't see the signs. Thats a bit much.
As for your quote " other than to point out that social workers do not have the power to remove or spirit children away, only the Court has that power." Thats not the case is it. Do you not remember the recent case of a young mother who had just given brith and the social services turning up and taking the child away without a court order. (can't find the link so if any one else remember the story please put in a link if you can TY.)
Yes social services are up against it but it does change my point that they make the same statement every time and nothing seems to change. They other don't do a thing or they go over the top and wreck any good reputaion they have. Some thing needs to be done.
Any suggestions?
30 people missed the signs. Come on, your not telling me that 30 grown adults who are well trained professionals didn't see the signs. Thats a bit much.
As for your quote " other than to point out that social workers do not have the power to remove or spirit children away, only the Court has that power." Thats not the case is it. Do you not remember the recent case of a young mother who had just given brith and the social services turning up and taking the child away without a court order. (can't find the link so if any one else remember the story please put in a link if you can TY.)
Yes social services are up against it but it does change my point that they make the same statement every time and nothing seems to change. They other don't do a thing or they go over the top and wreck any good reputaion they have. Some thing needs to be done.
Any suggestions?
It has been remarked that SS cannot remove a child from it's family without the sanction of a court.
But just this week they done just that, and had to return the tot until proper procedure had been followed.
This raises the question, what would have happened had the childs family not complained.?
Also, the court bases it's decision on evidence produced by SS.
Writing as a person involved let me state.
In a case extending over more than a year, SS having expended hundreds of
Man/Woman hours and thousands of pounds of council revenue, attempting to wrench
a three year old girl from her loving family.
Even though the child had displayed no distress, Had suffered no harm, Was extremely well adjusted, ( At this tender age she was even toilet trained ).
And the only Medical examination she underwent was with her own GP, and at the instigation of her family.
When the case finally came to court it was thrown out on the second day of trial.
During this year, another baby, whose grandmother, realising that the baby was at risk,
had removed it from it's drug adicted parents, to care for it herself.
SS promptly took back the child and returned it to its parents. This in spite of the
fact that traces of drugs had been found in the child�s blood at birth.
Sadly the child was beaten to death by it's parents in a matter of weeks. This is not a
solitary case.
At the same time another unfortunate child met the same fate, and in the same Area.
This begs the question, Why wasn't this wasted time and effort used to help the two
children who were so obviously in dire need of it.
( More to follow )
But just this week they done just that, and had to return the tot until proper procedure had been followed.
This raises the question, what would have happened had the childs family not complained.?
Also, the court bases it's decision on evidence produced by SS.
Writing as a person involved let me state.
In a case extending over more than a year, SS having expended hundreds of
Man/Woman hours and thousands of pounds of council revenue, attempting to wrench
a three year old girl from her loving family.
Even though the child had displayed no distress, Had suffered no harm, Was extremely well adjusted, ( At this tender age she was even toilet trained ).
And the only Medical examination she underwent was with her own GP, and at the instigation of her family.
When the case finally came to court it was thrown out on the second day of trial.
During this year, another baby, whose grandmother, realising that the baby was at risk,
had removed it from it's drug adicted parents, to care for it herself.
SS promptly took back the child and returned it to its parents. This in spite of the
fact that traces of drugs had been found in the child�s blood at birth.
Sadly the child was beaten to death by it's parents in a matter of weeks. This is not a
solitary case.
At the same time another unfortunate child met the same fate, and in the same Area.
This begs the question, Why wasn't this wasted time and effort used to help the two
children who were so obviously in dire need of it.
( More to follow )
( Part Two ).
I have likened Social Services to Hitler�s SS. This is not an exaggeration.
They have the power to disrupt and destroy people's lives, and even if proved wrong
they do not have to answer to anybody, but just walk away.
Scenario 1 :=
Scraping the barrel to obtain witnesses, they sent letters to neighbours telling them that
" They could be called to court in the matter of a Grandfather and his Grand daughter ",
The said letters naming names and addresses, but not details of the investigation.
Naturally, the recipients of said letters formed opinions in the worst possible light.
When the case was thrown out, the only follow up was further letters announcing that
" You will not now be needed in court ".
No explanations to anybody so, as you can imagine,
$h1t sticks..
Scenario 2 :=
In a further attempt to get a result and make a court case, SS then produced a
female, ( Who by the way was an ex SS worker ). who was willing to say that her
breast had been brushed-in-passing by one of the defendants, a number of years
previously.
At great expense, this witness?, was brought the length of the country, produced in court and was dismissed in a matter
of moments.
The judge's summing up declared that there was no case to answer. He also gave
permission for the verdict to be disclosed should any one refer to the case in the future.
During the year long trauma caused by all this, And at sundry meetings and visits by
SS workers we were constantly hearing what we referred to as
Reply number one, Namely, " LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED ".
And reply number two, � WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT �.
Again, something else that invariably failed to materialise.
DRIVEL ?, I think not.
I have likened Social Services to Hitler�s SS. This is not an exaggeration.
They have the power to disrupt and destroy people's lives, and even if proved wrong
they do not have to answer to anybody, but just walk away.
Scenario 1 :=
Scraping the barrel to obtain witnesses, they sent letters to neighbours telling them that
" They could be called to court in the matter of a Grandfather and his Grand daughter ",
The said letters naming names and addresses, but not details of the investigation.
Naturally, the recipients of said letters formed opinions in the worst possible light.
When the case was thrown out, the only follow up was further letters announcing that
" You will not now be needed in court ".
No explanations to anybody so, as you can imagine,
$h1t sticks..
Scenario 2 :=
In a further attempt to get a result and make a court case, SS then produced a
female, ( Who by the way was an ex SS worker ). who was willing to say that her
breast had been brushed-in-passing by one of the defendants, a number of years
previously.
At great expense, this witness?, was brought the length of the country, produced in court and was dismissed in a matter
of moments.
The judge's summing up declared that there was no case to answer. He also gave
permission for the verdict to be disclosed should any one refer to the case in the future.
During the year long trauma caused by all this, And at sundry meetings and visits by
SS workers we were constantly hearing what we referred to as
Reply number one, Namely, " LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED ".
And reply number two, � WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT �.
Again, something else that invariably failed to materialise.
DRIVEL ?, I think not.
Yes at the end of the day the only person respnsible for her death was this man but it could have been prevented by intervention of those prfessionals who saw her. Never mind working on those who might possibly but who haven't actually done anything. There was evidence that there was a problem and the child was in danger so what happened?
Never mind departments don't communicate, thats just not and excuse.
Why don't they communicate? Is there some physical barrier that stops them, some goverment policy thats says they can't?
Sadder still I think is that the judicial system fails. This man will probably be free at some point and will then be able to go on and have more children.
I think if some one has been proven to have neglected, abused or killed a child then they should be stopped from having any more.
If you kill an animal the chances are the courts (if it ever gets that far) will stop you from ever keeping animals again. Surely it would not be wrong to apply the same rule if you hurt or kill a child.
Never mind departments don't communicate, thats just not and excuse.
Why don't they communicate? Is there some physical barrier that stops them, some goverment policy thats says they can't?
Sadder still I think is that the judicial system fails. This man will probably be free at some point and will then be able to go on and have more children.
I think if some one has been proven to have neglected, abused or killed a child then they should be stopped from having any more.
If you kill an animal the chances are the courts (if it ever gets that far) will stop you from ever keeping animals again. Surely it would not be wrong to apply the same rule if you hurt or kill a child.
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |