News0 min ago
Polly Toynbee Says "it Is The Baby Ps And Hamzah Khans Who Pay For This Tory Vandalism"
17 Answers
http://
Is it wrong to try and gain political points from the horrible suffering that these two innocent small children experienced?
Is it wrong to try and gain political points from the horrible suffering that these two innocent small children experienced?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Polly Toynbee is a journalist not a politician. Point scoring would do her no benefit, but she isn't doing that anyway. She is attempting to highlight where the cuts are hurting most and the damage they are doing.
The bean counters demand a 30% cut by local authorities. That loss of money is going to affect a lot of people. Toynbee and the Guardian are reporting that.
She explicitly says in her opening paragraph that these sad child cruelty cases happen under every Government. It would appear that schemes designed to help families and children, which were recomendations from previous reports in past tragedies, are in danger or have stopped because of a lack of money from local authorities. That is worth reporting and worth putting up for debate (whether we should be cutting theis).
The bean counters demand a 30% cut by local authorities. That loss of money is going to affect a lot of people. Toynbee and the Guardian are reporting that.
She explicitly says in her opening paragraph that these sad child cruelty cases happen under every Government. It would appear that schemes designed to help families and children, which were recomendations from previous reports in past tragedies, are in danger or have stopped because of a lack of money from local authorities. That is worth reporting and worth putting up for debate (whether we should be cutting theis).
I agree with gromit here. There is little point in castigating the messenger, just because the message isn't to our liking. And VHG...of course these things happened under Labour, and I am sure that Polly pointed that out at the time. The Guardian is very good at taking all sides to task, no matter what their political hue.
How, pray, did the “Tory Cuts” (both parts of that phrase a misnomer) cause the death of Baby P?
The child died in August 2007 almost three years before the end of the Labour government. In any case, no end of resources were poured into the supervision of this “troubled family” and the reason the child was failed was due to ineptitude and reluctance to do what was necessary. Lack of resources was not an issue. The latest similar fiasco involving the same local authority demonstrates quite clearly that the “lessons that would be learned” clearly were not.
Ms Toynbee should be ashamed of herself. But she won’t be.
The child died in August 2007 almost three years before the end of the Labour government. In any case, no end of resources were poured into the supervision of this “troubled family” and the reason the child was failed was due to ineptitude and reluctance to do what was necessary. Lack of resources was not an issue. The latest similar fiasco involving the same local authority demonstrates quite clearly that the “lessons that would be learned” clearly were not.
Ms Toynbee should be ashamed of herself. But she won’t be.
New Judge,
Toynbee makes it quite clear she is not blaming any one Government for the numerous past failings.
She is upset that some of the measures put in place to prevent FUTURE tragedies are being starved of funds. You talk about reluctance and ineptitude to do the right thing, but there was no coordination between agencies.
// ContactPoint has been expunged from memory. It was a register for all the nation's children, so none could disappear across local authority boundaries. Any professional with a concern put a flag on the register against the children's name – though no confidential information. Any other senior teacher, social worker, doctor or police officer worried about that child, seeing a flag, would make contact to find the details and confer. Hamzah Khan fell off everyone's radar, but ContactPoint would have raised the alarm that he was never seen by a GP or registered at school. //
That seems like a sensible initiative. A start at least. The fact that it has been discountinued due to lack of funds is a scandal.
Toynbee has nothing to be ashamed of for highlighting the plight of CentrePoint. Quite the opposite, regardless of who she writes for, she gets my admiration for bringing this yo all our attentions.
Toynbee makes it quite clear she is not blaming any one Government for the numerous past failings.
She is upset that some of the measures put in place to prevent FUTURE tragedies are being starved of funds. You talk about reluctance and ineptitude to do the right thing, but there was no coordination between agencies.
// ContactPoint has been expunged from memory. It was a register for all the nation's children, so none could disappear across local authority boundaries. Any professional with a concern put a flag on the register against the children's name – though no confidential information. Any other senior teacher, social worker, doctor or police officer worried about that child, seeing a flag, would make contact to find the details and confer. Hamzah Khan fell off everyone's radar, but ContactPoint would have raised the alarm that he was never seen by a GP or registered at school. //
That seems like a sensible initiative. A start at least. The fact that it has been discountinued due to lack of funds is a scandal.
Toynbee has nothing to be ashamed of for highlighting the plight of CentrePoint. Quite the opposite, regardless of who she writes for, she gets my admiration for bringing this yo all our attentions.
Then she should not have headed her piece so evocatively mentioning a particularly harrowing fairly recent case. Further, for thirteen of the years she is said to be reviewing a Labour government was in power so "Tory Vandalism" can scarcely be blamed.
In any case her assertion that “Tory Cuts” (or indeed any other cuts) cause these fiascos. There are plenty (some would say too many) agencies examining and allegedly supervising these unfortunate children. The problem is that there a\re too many “case reviews”, “case conferences” and “multi agency debates” going on. What is needed is for somebody to actually do something when a problem is recognised. Ms Toynbee seems to think that blaming national government for what are essentially failings by local agencies and individuals is somehow “cool”.
In any case her assertion that “Tory Cuts” (or indeed any other cuts) cause these fiascos. There are plenty (some would say too many) agencies examining and allegedly supervising these unfortunate children. The problem is that there a\re too many “case reviews”, “case conferences” and “multi agency debates” going on. What is needed is for somebody to actually do something when a problem is recognised. Ms Toynbee seems to think that blaming national government for what are essentially failings by local agencies and individuals is somehow “cool”.
New Judge
She wrote of Baby Ps and Khans. You seem to be not reading the 's' on those names. She was meaning all past cases of child neglect.
She is not blaming the 13 years of Labour for 'vandalising' CounterPoint. Labour set it up after previous tragedies. The starving of funds for it has occurred on the Coalition's watch.
She wrote of Baby Ps and Khans. You seem to be not reading the 's' on those names. She was meaning all past cases of child neglect.
She is not blaming the 13 years of Labour for 'vandalising' CounterPoint. Labour set it up after previous tragedies. The starving of funds for it has occurred on the Coalition's watch.
I’m sorry, Gromit, but the amount of resources poured into supervising so-called “troubled families” is out of all proportion to the outcomes received. Countless agencies are involved in such cases, enormous amounts of time, money and effort are spent studying them, identifying possible problems, spotting potential jeopardy that the unfortunate children may face. Then nothing happens. In all of these cases injuries are apparent on the children and these are known; most of the (too) many agencies involved are well aware of the danger the child is in. The problem is not one of lack of resources, it is one of too many fingers in the pie but each finger unwilling to take the necessary action of removing the child to safety.
I know she is talking generally in her piece but since Ms Toynbee saw fit to head her article with Baby P, let’s have a look at some of the highlights of that case which demonstrates my point:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 2006: Connelly is arrested after bruises are spotted on the boy's face and chest by a GP.
January 2007: The boy is returned home five weeks after being put in the care of a family friend.
February 2007: A whistle-blower, former social worker Nevres Kemal, sends a letter about her concerns over alleged failings in child protection in Haringey to the Department of Health.
12 March 2007: Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) inspectors meet Haringey officials to discuss concerns raised by Ms Kemal in the letter sent by her lawyer, which was dated 16 February 2007.
April 2007: Baby Peter is admitted to North Middlesex hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.
May 2007: After seeing marks on the boy's face, a social worker sends Baby Peter to the North Middlesex where 12 areas of bruises and scratches are found.
30 July 2007: Injuries to Baby Peter's face and hands are missed by a social worker after the boy is deliberately smeared with chocolate to hide them.
1 August 2007: The boy is examined at a child development clinic.
3 August 2007: Baby Peter is found dead in his cot.
19 February 2009: Dr Jerome Ikwueke, a GP who saw Baby Peter 14 times before his death, is suspended by the General Medical Council.
15 March 2009: A leaked report into the death of Baby Peter suggests there were further missed opportunities to save him from abuse.
29 April 2009: Haringey Council dismisses a social worker and three managers for failings in the care of Baby Peter. They subsequently lose their appeals against dismissal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Between 2006 and his death in 2007 countless people - hospital doctors, GPs, social workers - saw the boy and must have been aware of the peril he was in. Senior managers in a number of agencies must have been aware of his plight (see entry of 12th March 2007). Nothing happened to ensure the boy’s safety.
No, lack of resources was not the cause of his death. If anything too many agencies were involved, but none saw fit to take any significant action. Baby P’s death was facilitated by gross ineptitude. Many people were aware of his plight.
His case is not atypical. Almost every case before and since follows the same dismal pattern - obvious signs of abuse missed by a multitude of people; children remaining in peril despite those signs; death or serious injury eventually ensues; “lessons will be learnt”; they never are.
It is disingenuous of commentators such as Ms Toynbee to jump on the “savage cuts” bandwagon. Child protection has always and will always be riddled with ineptitude because nobody is prepared to take effective action early on. It has nothing to do with money.
And the reason, Dave, why some people object to the government spending less of other people's money is that they equate increased government spending with an increase in successful outcomes. Whereas very often, precisely the opposite is true.
I know she is talking generally in her piece but since Ms Toynbee saw fit to head her article with Baby P, let’s have a look at some of the highlights of that case which demonstrates my point:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 2006: Connelly is arrested after bruises are spotted on the boy's face and chest by a GP.
January 2007: The boy is returned home five weeks after being put in the care of a family friend.
February 2007: A whistle-blower, former social worker Nevres Kemal, sends a letter about her concerns over alleged failings in child protection in Haringey to the Department of Health.
12 March 2007: Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) inspectors meet Haringey officials to discuss concerns raised by Ms Kemal in the letter sent by her lawyer, which was dated 16 February 2007.
April 2007: Baby Peter is admitted to North Middlesex hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.
May 2007: After seeing marks on the boy's face, a social worker sends Baby Peter to the North Middlesex where 12 areas of bruises and scratches are found.
30 July 2007: Injuries to Baby Peter's face and hands are missed by a social worker after the boy is deliberately smeared with chocolate to hide them.
1 August 2007: The boy is examined at a child development clinic.
3 August 2007: Baby Peter is found dead in his cot.
19 February 2009: Dr Jerome Ikwueke, a GP who saw Baby Peter 14 times before his death, is suspended by the General Medical Council.
15 March 2009: A leaked report into the death of Baby Peter suggests there were further missed opportunities to save him from abuse.
29 April 2009: Haringey Council dismisses a social worker and three managers for failings in the care of Baby Peter. They subsequently lose their appeals against dismissal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Between 2006 and his death in 2007 countless people - hospital doctors, GPs, social workers - saw the boy and must have been aware of the peril he was in. Senior managers in a number of agencies must have been aware of his plight (see entry of 12th March 2007). Nothing happened to ensure the boy’s safety.
No, lack of resources was not the cause of his death. If anything too many agencies were involved, but none saw fit to take any significant action. Baby P’s death was facilitated by gross ineptitude. Many people were aware of his plight.
His case is not atypical. Almost every case before and since follows the same dismal pattern - obvious signs of abuse missed by a multitude of people; children remaining in peril despite those signs; death or serious injury eventually ensues; “lessons will be learnt”; they never are.
It is disingenuous of commentators such as Ms Toynbee to jump on the “savage cuts” bandwagon. Child protection has always and will always be riddled with ineptitude because nobody is prepared to take effective action early on. It has nothing to do with money.
And the reason, Dave, why some people object to the government spending less of other people's money is that they equate increased government spending with an increase in successful outcomes. Whereas very often, precisely the opposite is true.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.