The tragic scandal of 'Baby P' becomes bigger every day. The Daily Mail reveals that "Four ministers were warned six months before the death of Baby P that social workers in his area were ‘out of control’." "They were told," the Mail reports, "that Haringey social services department was failing to protect children."
In today's Sun, Jon Gaunt congratulates David Cameron for raising the issue at PMQs:
"Cameron was bang on the money and in tune with the British public on Wednesday when he attacked Brown in the Commons. And the Bottler showed his true colours when, in response, he accused him of playing party politics. There was no party politics. But Labour have been playing at social engineering for the past 11 years. I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with them and the Guardianistas that they have created in every section of public life. Of course everyone directly involved in Baby P’s case must be sacked."
Gaunt continues (our emphasis):
"The RSPCA wouldn’t have visited this flat 60 times and done sod all. But the SS — that’s social services by the way — in Haringey left Baby P at the mercy of his “mother” and believed her lies. Why? Probably because they didn’t want to be judgmental and because they subscribed to the New Labour mantra of accepting all kinds of family."
In a chilling article for yesterday's Guardian, Iain Duncan Smith noted the huge preponderance of abuse within broken families:
"Today 25% of children in this country live in single parent families and this trend is set to accelerate. These children are three to six times more likely to experience abuse."
and
"A recent US study found that children living with a non-biological adult are 50 times more likely to die from afflicted injuries than those living with their biological parents."
Another reason why more needs to be done to promote the two parent family and the marriage bond. On today's ConservativeHome, Nick Gulliford does just that in the context of the work of local authorities.
Tim Montgomerie
I don't think its fair of IDS to make political capital over spurious correlations with single mothers. Children are not abused because they happen to be in a single-parent family. Abuse does not discriminate and occurs across social strata. Abuse occurs because of the individual, each case has its own perverted rationale, each case has to be viewed separately. Once politicians start to ascribe abuse to a certain socioeconomic group, it creates a false picture and a prejudice that sticks.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 09:16
Family breakdown causes more crime, lower school attainment and more abuse. That can't be ignored Tony by a compassionate politician.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | November 14, 2008 at 09:22
Tony, since they use the same statisical nonsence to justify banning smoking in pubs, yes it is fair.
On Haringey, having lived there for 5 years I can say that there is a stench of nepotism and corruption about the place. Rumor has it that one of the issues in previous child abuse cases, of which there have been many screw ups, is that the social workers would go to the flat of their case, find them not in and then head to the pub to write up fictitious reports.
The problem is that in all the last cases, the staff and management of Haringey SS have been slapped for various levels of incompetance but never sacked. After this debacle the head of Social Services should go, and bearing in mind the ratty schools, un cleared rubbish, broken lights et al, the council put into management rather than let the incompetant bunch of lunatics in Wood Green carry on running the show.
Posted by: Bexie | November 14, 2008 at 09:29
P.S to the above. I am hoping the Hinch will find time to comment. He is far more genned up on the local council
Posted by: bexie | November 14, 2008 at 09:30
Jennifer, abuse is often more visible in poorer families because they are more likely to come into contact with social services. I don't doubt that IDS is well intentioned generally and on these forums I've praised his efforts to examine social breakdown close-up, on the ground, by going into run down estates etc.
I feel that this issue is now becoming a political football, when, in fact, tackling abuse should unite opinion across the political spectrum. Its not difficult to see that what was a genuine concern over baby P can quickly become an opportunity for political figures to propagate wider social policies. Let's stay focused on the individual case, and the failure of those dealing with it.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 09:35
when did this ridiculous view develop that abuse is widespread across society? it is widespread in poor areas. NOT everywhere. this is a middle class fallacy that has gained credibility somehow. it's rubbish.
Abuse happens occasioanlly in middle class, uppper class and upper class families though the manifestation of it may be different.
but the vast majority of cases occur in areas of social deprivation.
That is where you find all the necessary conditions for abuse to thrive:
increased financial stress (no jobs), broken families (less strong connections), fewer fathers around (very badly behaved violent boys and very needy desperate girls who will not walk away from a violent partner)
frequent changes of partners (again less connected to the children),
drug and alcohol abuse (to escape from reality),
fewer educational achievements (fewer options out and fewer ways of coping),
squashed housing (no escape to another wing of the house)
less articulacy (fewer ways of discussing or coping in a non violent way),
less money or flexibility (no chance for the non violent parent to walk away)
and sadly, repeat cycles of all the above.
but this is not all - people have lived in these circumstacnes for decades without the depravation we see now. it is also a question of TV, the normalisation of violence, play station violent games and sensationalism by the media.
and then of course public sector workers failing to do their jobs. every one of them should be fired, inclduing any hospital drs who failed to report the child to the police.
the irony is that if it had been a middle class child, all of these bureaucrats would have been all over the case and the child would be safe. the fact that he was part of a weird, ridiculous set up meant that in our pc world he had to be left there to die.
we are all, a tiny bit, to blame. I pray this jolts us into complaining about useless individuals and saves the next child.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 09:42
As I understand it, the RSPCA had banned the family from keeping pets due to their appalling record with treating the animals badly.
Tragic that social services managed to miss what was immediately obvious to every other agency that paid this family a visit.
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | November 14, 2008 at 09:43
no Tony, much as I normally agree with you, I do not buy this.
I have a LOT of experience of working class areas and deprivation. it is not a class issue per se but it IS a social issue. the problems that go along no money, poor housing, stress, low education, no chances, no job, bordeom, drugs, many boyfriends, all lead to peopel coming into contact with the child who simply do not care about him/her and have no genetic link. it is MUCH easier for such a person to beat a child than the actual parent and the majority of these are the boyfriend with the mother supposedly powerless to stop him. it is not the fathers on the whole.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 09:47
letters - come on, they all saw it. the issue is that they didn't act.
why? their own careers, internal dictats, rubbish about abuse being prevalent everywhere save apparently in poor families, laziness, not wanting to be the whistle blower, and yes well intentioned but probably not brilliant individuals going into social work.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 09:49
Tony is right. This must not be turned into a political football and certainly must not be made about single parent families. The Conservative Party has said enough on this subject.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 09:51
The vast majority of people bringing up children do a reasonable job of it. This applies to most single mum’s. Most of us would feel rather insulted if the social service department of our local council turned up on our doorstep at regular intervals to check up on us. There is still a lot of social-stigma associated with social services being involved. I know this for a fact, as I am a private foster parent. Many people have looked down their nose’s at us when I have mentioned his Social worker, as though we must be a bad family.
Until we remove this false and foolish stigma there will be resistance to social workers going about their job. Just to put you in the picture, all privately fostered children must be visited by a social worker every 12 weeks, that is the law. I personally believe that the only way we are going to stamp out child abuse is if we make Social worker visit’s compulsory for all
Children. Of course that will cost money, and I suspect it will meet a great deal of resistance but to those of you who think “Not Us” may I remind you that it is exactly that knee jerk reaction that means many children fall through the net.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 09:54
If we ignore the fact that broken families are part of the story here we are as guilty as the ministers who don't oversee social services departments properly.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | November 14, 2008 at 09:55
Tony and Mark are right.
The Tories must be the uncritical friends of single parents regardless of the consequences for children.
Politics first. Children second.
*NOT*
Posted by: Vincent Wall | November 14, 2008 at 09:57
Mark,
Sorry but your comment makes me nervous that you are looking at it as a political issue and thinking we don't want to be seen as anti single parent families.
actually we need to be seen as principled.
as a complete generalisation, it is mostly boyfriends who do this stuff, not fathers. children in the groups in society that result in many frequent changes in boyfriend are at risk.
this goes very deep indeed and DC is quite right to be raising it as an example of one of his central tenets - the family or at least 2 stable parents are an essential prerequisite for children's future health and success.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 09:58
The vast majority of people bringing up children do a reasonable job of it. This applies to most single mum’s. Most of us would feel rather insulted if the social service department of our local council turned up on our doorstep at regular intervals to check up on us. There is still a lot of social-stigma associated with social services being involved. I know this for a fact, as I am a private foster parent. Many people have looked down their nose’s at us when I have mentioned his Social worker, as though we must be a bad family.
Until we remove this false stigma there will be resistance to social workers going about their job. Just to put you in the picture. All privately fostered children must be visited by a social worker every 12 weeks that is the law. I personally believe that the only way we are going to stamp out child abuse is if we make Social worker visit’s compulsory for all
Children. Of course that will cost money, and I suspect it will meet a great deal of resistance but to those of you who think “Not Us” may I remind you that it is exactly that knee jerk reaction that means many children fall through the net.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 10:00
I agree with Jennifer and Vincent and ....groan I supppose I do with the Bishop's suggestion too.
Armies of social workers with power to visit everyone fill me with dread though. the long arm of the state. God.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 10:01
To be clear - I think Haringey Social Services have failed in their duty of care, and I don't understand how the person in charge can live with herself without offering her resignation. There has been a systematic failure.
If Cameron wasn't playing politics with this - and judging by his reported "anger" in the first edition of the Standard printed before he stood up of PMQ it seems unlikely - Iain Duncan Smith definitely is. Once again, he gets it completely back to front - people aren't more likely to be in stable relationships because they are married, they are married because they are in stable relationships! Using this case to promote marriage is cheap and horribly opportunistic. He said "Probably because they didn’t want to be judgmental and because they subscribed to the New Labour mantra of accepting all kinds of family." He's got absolutely no idea. Accepting "all kinds of families" isn't accepting child abuse.
Here's an equivalently political left wing thing to say, not doubt as irritating "Probably because they have subscribed to the Daily Mail mantra of keeping families together and not taking children in to care."
The problem is in this case was willingness to believe the carers, and not to take children into care. Any where so the right stand on that? The Daily Mail and Express have campaigned against interfering social workers taking children away from their parent and think too much is spent on social services. If ever there was a case for the nanny state, this is it.
Social workers can never win. They are hated by the right for interfering too much, but then castigated by the left for not doing enough. Generally they do a great job.
I'm also irritated by those people who say "why wasn't it murder"? This new offence was introduced because it's very difficult to prove which "carer" inflicted the wounds. This new offence makes prosecution of responsible adults much easier, without having to prove which one inflicted the fatal wounds.
So, let's leave the cheap political point scoring out of this topic if we can.
Posted by: resident leftie | November 14, 2008 at 10:06
This whole tragic episode is a sorry testimony as to how this Government and some Local Authorities run this country. These bureaucrats, these jobsworths do not accept responsibility except the enormous salaries. Now it transpires Government Ministers were alerted but did not intervene. This is disgraceful.The death of this innocent baby cannot go unrecognised. Animals are given more protection from the RSPCA in the UK than children.
It exposed this PM as a callous character. There he stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday amidst the countries economic wreckage and was asked a reasonable question about the death of this little child, all he could reply was with a clumsy insult about 'making party political issue'. This is so gross, he proves he couldn't care less about anything, or anybody but himself. He has got to be the most despised PM of all time.
No lessons have been learnt after the equally tragic death of little innocent Victoria Climbie. What is wrong with this country?
Posted by: B.Garvie | November 14, 2008 at 10:11
I agree with you Jennifer, but we must also not lose track of the reality that many seemingly good families are hiding awful sexual and physical abuse of their children.
As an example, the vast majority of child pornography is filmed by the Childs parent mostly, although not exclusively the father.
We need to build a culture that puts child protection first, before and above the feelings of parents. Child abuse does not happen only in the homes of socially deprived or disadvantaged people. It’s a problem of all social class’s.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 10:12
true
Posted by: pat guide | November 14, 2008 at 10:14
"agree with Jennifer and Vincent and ....groan I supppose I do with the Bishop's suggestion too.
Armies of social workers with power to visit everyone fill me with dread though. the long arm of the state. God."
I know it smacks of the big state, but sometimes we have to allow a little intrusion. In a perfect world it would not be a problem. However we have to work with reality.
Posted by: The BIshop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 10:16
A legion of studies contradict the claim that correlations between family structure and social outcome are "spurious". Even after the effects of age, income, education, ethnic group, etc. are taken into account, there are still big differences in outcomes that cannot be explained away. Shocking individual cases like this are fortunately extreme. But they are indicative of the increased risks faced by a higher proportion of children - though by no means all.
A far bigger issue here is the way in which relationships form. Most young adults now tend to slide through what were previously important step changes in relationship formation - getting to know each other, getting engaged, getting married, sleeping together, living together, having children - each of which required time to gather information and make a deliberative decision.
No system is perfect. However taking it slow gave couples time to acquire enough information to make the next step with confidence or back away safely.
There are two problems. First, premature entanglement creates inertia. Inertia makes it harder to back away from a relationship that isn't working as well as hoped or one that is not safe. Second, men and women commit in different ways. The decision making process is especially important for men. Sliding through these changes allows men to give the appearance of commitment whilst avoiding it. Several datasets now confirm this finding. The risks of sliding through step-changes are invaribaly borne by women.
The state colludes in the risk of unstable relationships, not so much by encouraging premature entanglement and pregnancy but by removing the disincentives against ill-thought through decisions that increase risks.
If there is a solution to this, it lies in a social attitude change as dramatic as that of the last 40 years. The kinds of proposals made in the CSJ Breakthrough Britain reports are aimed at facilitating this.
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 10:17
If we ignore the fact that broken families are part of...
The tragedy for Baby P wasn’t a broken family. It was that he had nobody on his side. Not his mum. Not the father-figure. Not the lodger. Not the social services. Not the doctors. That, alone, is the issue.
Turning this into a debate about single mums and broken families is revolting.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 10:18
Sorry but your comment makes me nervous that you are looking at it as a political issue and thinking we don't want to be seen as anti single parent families.
It that's the case, you misunderstood me.
I don't want to be seen as "anti single parent families" because I am not anti them. In most cases I think there is a great deal of sadness that took them to that point and they need help, not disgusting moralising.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 10:20
RSPCA. Years ago I came across adults being caused mental illness due to their conditions. The authorities would not move, so I said I would bring in the RSPCA, because humans are animals and deserve the same rights and the RSPCA would not have allowed a dog to be kept in such conditions. The place was emptied within hours.
Posted by: Dollybird | November 14, 2008 at 10:20
Biologically speaking, it is obvious that men will be more inclined to protect, and less inclined to abuse, their own children.
But we don't just have to rely on common-sense. There is so much evidence to show that children of single parent families are more at risk, it would be criminal to pretend otherwise.
Posted by: Deborah | November 14, 2008 at 10:24
Its good to see so much anger generated over this case. It shows the British public does not want to look away when such shocking abuse occurs. Hopefully events surrounding baby P will lead to a root and branch review of how local authorities deal with children at risk. Its certainly true that the older we get, the more it saddens us to hear of the death of those who die so young.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 10:27
" I think there is a great deal of sadness that took them to that point and they need help, "
Agreed. But that does not mean we should pretend the consequences for children aren't there. If we want to protect children, we need to face up to the unpalatable truth that the absence of a biological father has an impact on the likelihood of abuse and that, sadly, all types of family are not equal where child safty is concerned.
Posted by: Deborah | November 14, 2008 at 10:29
The problem is in this case was willingness to believe the carers, and not to take children into care.
I don't know where the 'Right' stand, but here's where I stand - I thought this child had one carer his single parent mother. Why were multiple 'carers' in the social housing? Why wasn't the alarm rang about this co-habiting? During 60 visits to an 'at risk' child wasn't a walk around the property done? Are there any rules about single parents being allowed to take in lodgers and boyfriends? I thought there were.
Posted by: a-tracy | November 14, 2008 at 10:30
The mother and 'boyfriend' of baby P should not spend the next 30 years in prison. They should be executed.
Any 'human being' that inflicts 60 injuries on a defenceless baby, and then teaches it to crawl and beg with a click of his fingers, forfeits the right to be treated as a member of the human race.
The SAS should be asked to use this individual for live target practice.
Posted by: London Tory | November 14, 2008 at 10:36
I fear that social workers have a near impossible job. Any one of us who is, or has been a parent, must, if truthful, admit that there are times when we have been close to cracking. In spite of this, most of us make a reasonably good job of parenting. This is, in part, due to the support (or at least encouragement) of our wider families, friends, neighbours and, above all, if we are married, husband or wife.
I don’t want to live in a society where bossy social workers (often of low educational attainment, frequently of with no children of their own and sometimes with a left wing agenda) have the power to remove children from their parents; this decision should only be made in OPEN court (justice must be seen to be done). Furthermore, the state as parent substitute has a very poor record.
Every indicator shows that children tend to do better when brought up be their natural parents and that partnerships between couples are more likely to be stable within marriage than outside. Thus the state and society should encourage marriage and frown on unmarried parents. If this means that there is a stigma attached to unmarried mums and feckless youths then so be it.
PS: Note to feckless youths and middle class libertarians: "She told me she was on the pill so it's not my fault" is NOT a valid excuse.
Posted by: David_at_Home | November 14, 2008 at 10:36
"This must not be turned into a political football and certainly must not be made about single parent families. The Conservative Party has said enough on this subject."
What, exactly, does the Conservative party stand for now? Does it have any moral principles?
Posted by: JuliaM | November 14, 2008 at 10:39
Bishop - I disagree with you on social worker visits for all chidlren.
The problem here was not one of quantity, but of quality - even if every child in the country had 60 visits from social services, it would not have changed what happened here.
Equally, a single visit to this family could have been enough if it had made the child safe.
Leave the obsession with 'quantity' to labour - it is 'quality' that the conservatives need to be obsessed with - and not just on this, but on everything from government spending to new legislation.
Quality intervention where it is needed; not mediocre intervention for all.
Posted by: pp | November 14, 2008 at 10:39
The breakdown of family life, the obvious cracks in and breakdown of society, coupled with the present economic maelstrom, are linked to one terrifying and historic paragim. All social structures end, eventually. They end with a surfeit of greed, hubris and the stupidity of ruling classes. This despicable "Government" and it's now defunct but relevant socialist dogma have hastened the fall of Capitalist Democracy. It is to be and is being replaced by a capaitalist dictatorship, led by the likes of China, Russia and India.
Consider the record of human rights abuses to bring these structures to the fore and compare them with what is happening in the UK. The tragedy of Baby P is but one of many signs of the callous and indifferent nature of a Dictatorship where the benefit for the rulers is accepted as being for the good of all.
Brown's unbridled joy at the economic tsunami washing towards us is further evidence of his belief that he can hold power for his whole life. Remember these words and apply them to the actions of YOUR Government. Then say a prayer for all the suffering this is to bring about.
Posted by: m dowding | November 14, 2008 at 10:44
a-tracy:
This is becuse:
The professionals are meant to look at the child and are not empowered to blow the whistle on issues that do not involve the child. It would make the work of social workers far more dangerous if they, as an example reported co-habitation. Another example of this is the nursing profession. They are expected to report illegal behavior when it impacts children. So if a patient confesses to an addiction to child-pornography (and its possession) they must report that, but otherwise there is a confidentiality clause on most other activities. So a Nurse who is told by a patient that he has not paid tax for ten years, is not allowed to report that to the tax man. The only exception is child protection issues as I said above. I’m not certain I agree with this confidentially culture but I do except that it would be very difficult and even dangerous to change it. This is part of the reason our public services do not share most information. Nurse’s as an example do not want to be drawn into a police state by the back door.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 10:46
Tony Makara at 9.16am you are obviously on a different planet to the rest of us. This is the real world. Back to Grauniad with you they hold your moronic views too.
Posted by: Victor M. | November 14, 2008 at 10:48
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 10:17
A legion of studies contradict the claim that correlations between family structure and social outcome are "spurious". Even after the effects of age, income, education, ethnic group, etc. are taken into account, there are still big differences in outcomes that cannot be explained away. Shocking individual cases like this are fortunately extreme. But they are indicative of the increased risks faced by a higher proportion of children - though by no means all.
A legion of studies? Oh, do point me at them!
Most people who get married have a close bond. Marriage is an indicator of that bond, not a cause of it. This case has nothing to do with the institution of marriage, and it's deeply unpleasant that moral conservative are using this horrible death as an excuse to promulgate religious-driven social engineering, which would not work in any case.
With social services, you have to decide, do you give the parents or the child the benefit of the doubt? Leaning too far each way causes terrible problems. But you can't avoid deaths such as this one without "inteferring social services", and spending public money, a lot of public money, on systems to help these children.
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 10:17
Most young adults now tend to slide through what were previously important step changes in relationship formation - getting to know each other, getting engaged, getting married, sleeping together, living together, having children - each of which required time to gather information and make a deliberative decision.
...and this is exactly why we need relationship education from year dot for children.
Posted by: B.Garvie | November 14, 2008 at 10:11
These bureaucrats, these jobsworths do not accept responsibility except the enormous salaries
Are you joking? The problem is that they are underfunded, understaffed and underpaid! Even IDS agrees on this one. An assistant mental health manager gets £18K a year. A qualified social worker in adult services start on around £21K.
This one example made headline news because it is a very, very rare event. So spare a thought for those interfering, Guardian-reading social workers who save children every day from this kind of fate, and like the police, often get abuse for their trouble.
Posted by: resident leftie | November 14, 2008 at 10:50
Does it have any moral principles?
Yes, JuliaM, it should have sufficient moral prinicples that it doesn't confuse issues for political purposes.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 10:58
Victor M, nice to see that we have a member of the intelligentsia visiting these forums!
The great danger in trying to draw a correlation between abuse and single-parent families is that, rather like equating black people with knife crime, it moves us away from dealing with the individual causes of abuse. Groups don't commit crime, individuals do.
I well remember Douglas Hurd saying that its impossible to legislate against a madman, perhaps this is true? Some individuals are violent, and need little or no excuse to hurt others. All we can do is spot the signs early and intervene swiftly.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 11:08
TBS - thanks for your explanation.
However, I wasn't suggesting the social worker report them to the Housing and benefits office, I was asking why multiple carers being present at a single parent's house whose child was on the 'at risk' register didn't ring serious alarm bells for the protection of that child?
We see adverts on the television about benefit cheats all the time so if the general public is being encouraged to snitch on their neighbours why can't social workers make an anonymous tip off, passing the responsibility over to another agency I know. This government encourages this sort of behaviour with its tax credits and more benefits for mums that claim to be alone.
I thought social workers were on between £22 and £25 per hour plus final salary pension. Or £32,000 pa if full time. Surely a more senior grade social worker was on such a case (requiring 60 visits) not a junior. I would like to know if that was the case.
Posted by: a-tracy | November 14, 2008 at 11:11
"...and this is exactly why we need relationship education from year dot for children."
Delivered by whom, Resident Leftie, and with what agenda?
Are you a parent? Any parent knows, in their heart, that giving one’s children lectures on how to behave does not really work. What does work is teaching by example.
Posted by: David_at_Home | November 14, 2008 at 11:12
All social structures end, eventually.
I've been thinking for a few years now that modern society peaked around 1998/99 and since then has either been just tinkering around the edges or making things worse.
Plus, it's a multiple of 666 since that Jesus bloke, the one before happening at the time of the black death (I'm not supersitious etc, I just like playing with interesting numbers!)
Haringey is an awful place, my friend lives below some people I think housed by the council and is often woken up in the morning by them throwing used nappies out of the window... the atmosphere turns it into a graveyard for ambition.
getting to know each other, getting engaged, getting married, sleeping together, living together, having children
Always sleep together first (..and sleep as well as other stuff) ... it will save a lot of time, effort and heartbreak when you realise that you aren't compatible sleepers or sexually.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | November 14, 2008 at 11:17
The Mother of Baby P is reported as having 3 more children by previous relationships. Does anyone know whether or not these children were living with her at the time of Baby P's death? I would suggest that the previous children all have case-files, and those children's history could be central to any case of Gross Professional Misconduct brought against the Haringey SS.
IDS has done a tremendous amount of work on the outcomes of social and economic deprivation. Resident Leftie's party political approach is unsurprising, but I am somewhat taken aback by the responses of Messrs Makara and Fulford. I know of too many single parents who do a wonderful job of preparing their children for life. I know of many childless couples who make wonderful parents to adopted children, and I have no doubt that the Bishop Swine, who has the most ardous job of all, is an excellent foster parent.
The fact remains that parenthood is more difficult for a single or surrogate parent, of any social status. Generally, the best outcomes for the child result in single or surrogate parents providing as nearly as possible a nuclear family environment. While defending single parenthood, they should at least admit to recognising that a family unit of biological mother and father + children with siblings is the most effective way to bring up young humans.
Posted by: grumpy old man | November 14, 2008 at 11:22
"Some individuals are violent, and need little or no excuse to hurt others. All we can do is spot the signs early and intervene swiftly."
You mean, all the things the SS in Haringey didn't do...?
Posted by: JuliaM | November 14, 2008 at 11:30
Posted by: David_at_Home | November 14, 2008 at 11:12
"...and this is exactly why we need relationship education from year dot for children."
Delivered by whom, Resident Leftie, and with what agenda?
Are you a parent? Any parent knows, in their heart, that giving one’s children lectures on how to behave does not really work. What does work is teaching by example.
Delivered by teachers, with the agenda specified here:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/sreguidance/
sexeducation.pdf
For example:
"It is lifelong learning about physical, moral and emotional development. It is
about the understanding of the importance of marriage for family life, stable and
loving relationships, respect, love and care. It is also about the teaching of sex,
sexuality, and sexual health. It is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or
sexual activity – this would be inappropriate teaching."
"Secondary pupils should learn to understand human sexuality, learn the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits to be gained from such delay, and learn about obtaining appropriate advice on sexual health."
"Effective sex and relationship education does not encourage early sexual
experimentation. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and
to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up
their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual
activity."
"The role of a school’s governing body and head teacher in the determination of a
school’s policy is crucial. The governing body, in consultation with parents, will be
able to develop policies which reflect the parents’ wishes and the community they
serve."
"personal and social skills
– learning to manage emotions and relationships confidently and sensitively;
– developing self-respect and empathy for others;
– learning to make choices based on an understanding of difference and with an
absence of prejudice;
– developing an appreciation of the consequences of choices made;
– managing conflict; and
– learning how to recognise and avoid exploitation and abuse."
That sort of thing. Personally, I think there is too much emphasis on marriage, but there you go. Some parents don't set a good example at all, and school is the only place where there are responsible adults able to offer advice on these difficult topics.
Posted by: resident leftie | November 14, 2008 at 11:33
I watched the official with overall responsibility for children`s safety and welfare at Harringey, being interviewed by Channel 4 News. When asked who was to blame for the death of Baby P, she said very firmly that the blame lay at the door of the mother, her lover and the lodger. In the end, this must be so and no amount of wriggling by the well-intentioned can escape this fact. However, the clear implication that emerged from this chilling official verdict is that if 60 visits by various authorities still could not prevent this tragedy, then those authorities seem to be of no use at all. If despite all they protest that they have done, they had no effect on the outcome, they should no longer be entrusted with such an important duty of care.
Now it is unlikely that such a broad and uninformed judgement as this can be applied nationwide. Even so in the particular case of Harringey, it seems that this useless crew are condemned out of the mouth of their "leader" and so if nowhere else, there should be sackings at Harringey to demonstrate that this self-justifying, complacent group of incompetents cannot be trusted to carry out their duty.
David Cameron`s anger in the face of this affair, compounded by Brown`s self-satisfied non-answer to his perfectly legitimate question, was completely justified. He spoke as a father and for some of the previous posts here to accuse him of politicking is demeaning to the accusers who seem to be cynical beyond belief.
Posted by: john parkes | November 14, 2008 at 11:33
It might be too early for contributors to this thread to look at the political and governance aspects of this frightful story. But I, for one, am very aware of another cause for anger than the deaths themselves.
There is an obvious, hugely improbable, irony that Baby P died under the same regime as lost Victoria Climbie. So you could not have written it as fiction.
But, if you did, much of your story of the last eight years might follow a great arc through our public sector as the recommendations of Lord Laming recast huge chunks of our bureaucracy. Everyone in the education business, from the volunteer governors like myself at the margin to the grandest Head of Department, has responded and is still responding to the newish concept of Every Child Matters. This is not just a standalone truism. This is a world of symposia, conferences, forums, training sessions, policy directives, lovely new salaries and pensions, endless documentation, earnestness, postures and jargon. This is where Gordon Brown’s “investments” have gone when they might have gone per capita to our pupils.
In principle, ECM should have been affecting the health service, social services and police as much as education.
Our huge blundering government has purported to save the nation’s professionals from being party to the murder of another little Victoria, at unfathomable expense, but it has quite failed to stop Harringey Council from getting it wrong again.
It is difficult to take one’s eyes off the images of the dead children. But their individual tragedies bracket perfectly the huge futility of our nanny state.
Posted by: Rupert Butler | November 14, 2008 at 11:41
Anyone who has worked in North London Safeguarding and Social Care (I have) in the last five years would know without doubt that Haringey SSC have not been performing properly. However, some of the moronic responses on here defy belief. Even though some of you are saying remove the child etc... I don't think you actually understand how difficult it is to remove a child from the home. Read how much red tape there is to get initially an Emergency Protection Order and then follow that up with an Interim Care Order... all requiring a judge to sign off on this having had the relevant social worker prevent a clear and concise case with adequate evidence that there is a serious child protection concern.
Although it's more than likely that Haringey SSC didn't do their duty properly here I do think that it is important to put the situation into context from a SSC perspective.
Posted by: Anon | November 14, 2008 at 11:52
it time to remove child protection from the local councils and form a national bureau independant of the state and all its politicing. The new bureau should have clear and simple objectives and be the lead authority on child protection in the multi-agency world - publishing annual statistics.
Posted by: vaughan davies | November 14, 2008 at 12:00
While defending single parenthood, they should at least admit to recognising that a family unit of biological mother and father + children with siblings is the most effective way to bring up young humans.
Grumpy old man, what is making me more angry than I have ever felt on CH is the conflation of this issue and that.
If the boyfriend and mother had married, would Baby P have been any safer?
Clearly he wouldn't but, despite that, this editorial attempts to hijack Baby P’s misery for a pro-marriage agenda.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 12:17
"If the boyfriend and mother had married, would Baby P have been any safer?"
The boyfriend was not Baby P's natural father. However, if Baby P's natural mother and father had been living together as a married couple then the answer would be very probably yes.
Posted by: David_at_Home | November 14, 2008 at 12:33
Grumpy Old Man, the issue at hand is the attempt by IDS to equate single-parent families with abuse like that suffered by baby P.
We all recognize that a child brought up in a single-parent household will find it more difficult in material terms because there is only one wage-earner or no wage-earner at all. However this poorer standard of living cannot be equated with the desire to, or increased likelihood of abusing children.
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 12:36
The boyfriend was not Baby P's natural father. However, if Baby P's natural mother and father had been living together as a married couple then the answer would be very probably yes.
If you're suggesting that they should have got married before considering a child then fair enough, but if you are saying they should have got married when they found out she was pregnant, do you think that a piece of paper would or should have kept them from splitting up when things went wrong - assuming she knew who the father was.
Do I agree that the marriage issue doesn't really apply in this case - yes if they were a married couple then the baby might have been safer, but they weren't and the only way I can see to avoid such situations is to encourage abortion when it's obvious they aren't going to be able to provide a stable home... but that's not going to go down with the religious crazies.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | November 14, 2008 at 12:42
I'm with Tony and Mark on this.
This pressing issue is the immediate protection of children at risk from abuse *now*, not seeking another opportunity to push IDS's social reform agenda.
The only 'chilling' thing about IDS article is the depths politicians will stoop to promote their own agendas.
Posted by: GB£.com - a RON (Replace Osborne Now) not a Roon | November 14, 2008 at 13:18
refelcting on this awful thing....there is a big difference between this case and eg ones where the baby cries and is thrown across the room by an overstressed exhausted young parent.
or so I think anyway. this is evil, the former "snap" result is somehow not as evil, even if the result is the same.
was the boyfriend evil then? is there a gene for evil and cruelty? should we be trying to identify that much earlier - eg the child who enjoys causing pain to the family cat etc?
or is it environmental? is it TV? is it being subjected to violence at an early age onself? I having been smacked would have no problem smacking a child but others would see that as barbaric, I know.
does anyone have any views? we are all on the same page - all shocked, all trying to ensure it doesn't happen again. please contribute constructively if you have any thoughts.
Posted by: support the strivers | November 14, 2008 at 13:22
In 1967, I became a part-time housefather in a "short-stay Children's home (pre-Social Services). To become a Child Care Officer (Field Worker), it took a 1 year course, then the responsibility of the Home Officer. These things happened then, as I remember only too well. In the intervening 41 years, much has changed in the "Social Care Provision of Local Authorities. The change has only occurred in supposedly "improved" qualifications and duration of training for field staff and, of course, their pay and conditions. Where there has been no change is in the decision making by the better(?) trained staff and the various causes of the social deprivation. The excuse by Haringrey LB in the Victoria Climbie case was that training, (then two years for the present CQSW) was NOT long enough. Perhaps having obtained that, staff should be required to undertake a Ph.D, but that I feel would still not lead to any improvement in staff performance.
Terry Clark,
L'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, France.
Posted by: Terry Clark | November 14, 2008 at 13:26
If two people can't make a serious commitment to stay together for at least 16 years then they shouldn't be having children.
Yes things might go wrong along the way, and make it impossible, but without that initial intention they are lining themselves
up to be a burden on society.
As mentioned before, children primarily learn by example - that is why it is so easy for kids from good homes to become good parents, and so easy for childern from dysfunctional homes to be inadaquate parents.
Paying for the children of useless parents is a price that we generally accept (it isn't the childs fault) - however I would much preferable if that cost were minimised so parents could spend their money on their own kids. Is it any wonder that the birthrate amongst hardworking tax payers is so low.
Posted by: pp | November 14, 2008 at 13:36
Firstly, as if anything was needed, this serves to highlight the importance of social breakdown and the effect it is having on society. Social breakdown combined with the economic climate we are entering will prove a volatile and deadly combination for many families.
Second, the Government must not be allowed to hide from their responsibilities, which were perfectly clear - see the article by cassius below:
harringey ministerial evasion begins
Posted by: euro | November 14, 2008 at 14:09
Some bedtime reading for resident leftie - and anyone else - who would like to know about studies that link family structure and outcomes.
Go to the research section of my website www.bcft.co.uk and read the introduction to my paper "back off or fire back", to be published early next year in a book of academic studies of relationship education.
Incidentally, the latest studies on relationship education show that it is highly effective for adults - improves satisfaction & stability and reduces conflict up to five years on - but has limited benefits for teenagers. The teens who seem to benefit most are those who need it least, from better-off two-parent homes.
The government will be wasting time and money if it introduces mandatory relationship education in schools. The programmes only work for adults.
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 15:30
Whilst I agree with Tony (a rare occurrence) that this issue shouldn't be turned into a political football or used to launch a crusade over traditional family values, clearly the breakdown of stable families combined with the effective abandonment of an entire social class to joblessness and deprivation is having a terrible effect on the life chances of a significant number of children and providing conditions in which abuse can thrive.
David Cameron's outrage at PMQs yesterday was clearly deep-felt and mirrored the feelings of many of us who've been following the case of Baby P with a mixture of horror and incomprehension. It's difficult enough to understand how any parent could allow their child to be treated that way, but for Social Services to visit that child on average every four days over the period in question and not notice the terrible imminent danger is incomprehensible. Yes there should be a preference for keeping families together where that is in the best interests of the child, but since when do transient boyfriends and lodgers count as family?
There are clearly political issues here which need to be addressed here, not least the toxic mix of generational disenfranchisement and technocratic bureaucracy which seems to be the root cause of this case. These aren't necessarily ideological points, in that I'm pretty certain there are people of all political persuasions who feel equally as strongly that something is going decidedly wrong with our society and that serious changes are needed, but the exploration of what those changes are will most definitely be political.
As for the very reasonable point that Baby P would probably have been no safer if the principals concerned had been married, it's hard to argue otherwise. Marriage by and of itself is no guarantee that a child will enjoy a safe and healthy upbringing. But a society which places little if any value on longterm relationships and lightly sanctions transient cohabitation is sending a pretty strong signal about family life regardless of whether or not that's its intent.
Posted by: Eleanor McHugh | November 14, 2008 at 15:37
There has been no significant change in the number of child murders in the last thirty years. As the proportion of people married has declined - no change at all. Are you getting that? There is no direct correlation. It's like saying "people who shop at ASDA and Lidl are more likely to abuse their children; if everyone shopped at Waitrose, we wouldn't have these problems."
I know you'd like this incident to support your repugnant moral crusade, but it just doesn't.
There are lessons to be learned from this, but not "we need to get people to marry."
Posted by: resident leftie | November 14, 2008 at 16:11
"people who shop at ASDA and Lidl are more likely to abuse their children; if everyone shopped at Waitrose, we wouldn't have these problems."
Exactly - there is a correlation there, but it's an indication rather than a cause, like putting tape over a warning light.
But.. as there is a link, instead of forcing them to marry, it's worthwhile looking at why people get married and what makes that work, to try and encourage those things before people consider having/keeping a baby, and disuade them from having one if they don't have what it takes to make a marriage work (whether they marry or not is up to them)
Posted by: Norm Brainer | November 14, 2008 at 16:28
For resident leftie. Normally I enjoy reading your comments, sometimes because they are challenging, sometimes because the misrepresentation and misdirection - as above - makes me laugh. However there seems little further point in engaging with anyone who throws inappropriate personal insults from behind the cover of anonymity. Bye.
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 16:40
support the strivers: "is there a gene for evil and cruelty? should we be trying to identify that much earlier - eg the child who enjoys causing pain to the family cat etc? "
That'd be a start, given there's a well established link between animal abuse and the kind of people who abuse the higher animals. Like humans.
Posted by: JuliaM | November 14, 2008 at 16:45
I would agree with Resident Leftie (probably a first) about his comments on social workers. They often have to work in the most difficult of circumstances and are damned if they take children away and damned if they don't. It was quite gratifying to see one of my least favourite Conservative commentators, Simon Heffer, saying sensible about social workers things on Question Time last night.
Having said that the attitude of Ms Shoesmith at Haringay Council stinks.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 14, 2008 at 17:05
However there seems little further point in engaging with anyone who throws inappropriate personal insults from behind the cover of anonymity. Bye.
Resident leftie hasn't said anything that I disagree with. For the sake of argument, Harry, imagine that I had made the personal insults (whatever they were). Now perhaps you can address resident leftie's very valid point:
"There has been no significant change in the number of child murders in the last thirty* years. As the proportion of people married has declined - no change at all. Are you getting that? There is no direct correlation."
(* According to the NSPCC it's 40 years)
Posted by: Mark Fulford | November 14, 2008 at 17:09
Ms Shoesmith is only doing what all professionals do, all be it rather clumsly and seemingly callous fashion. She is protecting her colleges. She is playing hardball very much as Gordon Brown did. I also think its important to understand that her head is one that could easily be targeted in a purge of those deemed to have failed. When you take the real anger that has been so well displayed by DC in relation to this case into account it is hardly surprising that she has come out fighting. Please be reminded that, no social worker was responsible for the crime that was committed. An adult man is charged with a serious offence, that person is most likely responsible for this death ultimately.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | November 14, 2008 at 17:22
The case of baby P has truly shocked the nation. Although that and other tragic cases aside, we shouldn't overlook the fact that we have come a long way as regards children's rights over the years. Take for example this sample of dialogue from when Robert Owen appeared before Peel's House Committe in 1816:
Question: At what age to take children into your mills?
Robert Owen: At ten and upwards.
Question: Why do you not employ children at an earlier age?
Robert Owen: Because I consider it to be injurious to the children, and not beneficial to the proprietors.
Question: What reasons have you to suppose it is injurious to the children to be employed at an earlier age?
Posted by: Tony Makara | November 14, 2008 at 18:47
Posted by: Harry Benson | November 14, 2008 at 16:40
For resident leftie. Normally I enjoy reading your comments, sometimes because they are challenging, sometimes because the misrepresentation and misdirection - as above - makes me laugh. However there seems little further point in engaging with anyone who throws inappropriate personal insults from behind the cover of anonymity. Bye.
I think there must be a misunderstanding. I didn't personally insult anyone, and certainly not you. I asked you to back your statement up with data. If you know of any existing studies I would be happy to look at them. I look forward to reading your paper.
I think that using Baby P as an excuse to promote a pro-marriage agenda is morally repugnant, and it was the plural "you" which I was using in this connection. If you are doing this, then by all means include yourself in the insult, but that wasn't my intention.
I can assure you I've had a lot worse here!
Incidentally, I am talking about relationship education from age 5. Again, I'd like to know what data you are looking at.
Norm said:
But.. as there is a link, instead of forcing them to marry, it's worthwhile looking at why people get married and what makes that work, to try and encourage those things before people consider having/keeping a baby
I'd replace "marry" with "have stable and well adjusted children", and then agree with you 100%. As long as there is no force and no penalty.
Posted by: resident leftie | November 14, 2008 at 22:54
That baby boy was on the child protection register of Haringey – the very same half-witted incompetent local authority that was found to have failed seriously in their duty of care towards Victoria.
The baby was seen 60 times by so-called health or social workers around twice a week.
He had a broken back (paralysed) eight fractured ribs, missing fingernails and toenails, multiple bruises and an injury to the inside of his mouth and had swallowed one of his own teeth.
All this and seemingly not one of those paid to protect his wellbeing apparently noticed his agony or missing fingernails and toenails or tooth or the fact the child was paralysed, the powers that be disregarded him and so that child paid for their gross incompetence with his life.
He was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that the baby boy appeared "cranky" and "miserable" and was apparently unaware the baby had fractured ribs or a broken back.
So, what should be done about it?
We need to rid ourselves of the incompetent like of Dr Sabah al-Zayyat.
Any health or social worker that continually failed in their duty to protect a child resulting in the painful death of that child should be thrown out and forced to pay the funeral bill for that child. Maybe then they will not be so easily fooled by chocolate covering face wounds. A quick glance is entirely insufficient!
How come "a slob, completely divorced from reality living in a dream world" with a "sadistic fascinated with pain" was allowed to keep a baby boy on the child protection register of Haringey? Madness!
Also those that cause the death of a child by torture should be given over to their inmates and NOT protected.
But of course none of that will happen and there will be another and another baby P until the day such people lose the right to be protected in prison. For baby P there will be no justice, no as you sew, so shall you reap inflicted upon those that take pleasure in the agony of a child.
Punishment must be made to fit the crime and hell on earth not a small, soft and safe prison sentence for those that would happily torture to death a helpless child!
Posted by: John | November 15, 2008 at 09:18
Oh Bishop Swine, how full of cant you are! If Ms Shoesmith and her team had done their job in looking to the best interests of children in their area of responsibility as professionally as she appears to do in covering up for her, and their inadequacies, perhaps this tragedy would not have happened. Of course the death of the child in question is the direct outcome of the actions of others; those who perpetrated this foul crime. However we cannot escape the fact that the local authority had taken on specific responsibilities, which required them to follow certain procedures. They failed. No amount of soft soap from you or anyone else can cover that up. Get real, my friend. If Ms Shoesmith and her crew had prevented this event from happening, we would never have heard the last of it. See how quick they are to do a bunk now the reverse is the case.
Posted by: john parkes | November 15, 2008 at 13:02
Without God in the life of the Nation, we are out of control. Because God helps us to overcome the devastation that bad human nature developes. God's law must be paramount, 'Love your neighbour as yourself' It is only God that can help us fulfill that. Think about it. We should take care of each other as we expect to be cared for. We are all responsible for each other. Henryk East London.
Posted by: Henryk Sienkiewicz | November 19, 2008 at 10:18