Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted
I know what he is trying to do, but he is confusing the issue, which is why I questioned it.

The ECHR has nothing to do with European politics. European politics concerns the expansion and maintenance of a common market. Its interests are economic.

The ECHR was the brainchild of British politicians, and was drafted by British lawyers, in the main. This was one of the reasons we haven't incorporated it until recently, as it was felt we didn't need to, seeing as we'd come up with the idea!! The Court sits outside of the politics of the EC, and is an entity in its own right.

As for Article 8, remember that the parent's rights have to be balanced with the child's Article 3 rights (not suffer degrading or inhuman treatment).

With regards to the legislation, it wasn't that long ago that we had knee jerk reactions over Social Services taking children from their families indiscriminately. No "better safe than sorry" attitude then! So due to popular demand, the processes are changed, and still it's wrong! What will happen now is we'll just go back to removing children from their homes on the off-chance, and it'll be back to square one.

What has happened to this child is wrong, and I hope the mother, her boyfriend and friend suffer by the principle of "what goes around, comes around". But I can't help but feel that there is a lack of perspective with this case. Yes, there has been a cock up, and those responsible will pay for it sooner or later. This case will undermine the good work that the authorities do with children. Some of the comments I have seen on facebook from friends who I thought were rational are totally OTT, especially before the facts started to come out ("I hope social workers die" was one from Friday or Saturday).

I know more about the workings of the ECHR than the mechanics of its creation but regardless of who drafted it I suspect it had to receive parliamentary approval before it could be implemented as the ECHR. We were one of the latter countries to adopt it by statute via the Human Rights Act 1998 that was not brought into force until 2000.

I'm not sure that I agree with your analysis about not needing to implement the Convention as our lawyers were responsible for drafting the bulk of the provisions. There was no similar statutory provision and the application of many of the principles were not required as they are now. In those days one was far more dependant on the discretion of the judge hearing your case to accept your submissions based on principles akin to those set out in the Convention. These days the judge must engage the Convention to inform his/her handling or determination of the case.

As to Article 3 rights they are engaged but strangely rarely cited in child protection cases. The right to family life is often trumped by intervention (i.e removal) being permissible if it is necessary and proportionate. This will often be the case where significant harm or its risk is made out

Finally, you will see from my earlier post that whilst this case is horrendous the media and political frenzy is likely to result in the wrongful and permanent removal of children from their families. The balance is going to tip too far the other way

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
I know more about the workings of the ECHR than the mechanics of its creation but regardless of who drafted it I suspect it had to receive parliamentary approval before it could be implemented as the ECHR. We were one of the latter countries to adopt it by statute via the Human Rights Act 1998 that was not brought into force until 2000.

I'm not sure that I agree with your analysis about not needing to implement the Convention as our lawyers were responsible for drafting the bulk of the provisions. There was no similar statutory provision and the application of many of the principles were not required as they are now. In those days one was far more dependant on the discretion of the judge hearing your case to accept your submissions based on principles akin to those set out in the Convention. These days the judge must engage the Convention to inform his/her handling or determination of the case.

As to Article 3 rights they are engaged but strangely rarely cited in child protection cases. The right to family life is often trumped by intervention (i.e removal) being permissible if it is necessary and proportionate. This will often be the case where significant harm or its risk is made out

Finally, you will see from my earlier post that whilst this case is horrendous the media and political frenzy is likely to result in the wrongful and permanent removal of children from their families. The balance is going to tip too far the other way

We dealt with some of the history around the ECHR and HRA, and our governments have been guilty of being smug, I'm afraid. It was felt that as we'd had such a big hand in its creation, we were above its uses, which proved to be incorrect. To say that we haven't been bound by the Convention isn't strictly true; some judges, Lord Hoffman springs to mind, tried to use it in his reasoning before the HRA, whilst others had a blatant disregard for its principles. This has come back to haunt the UK, as the ever increasing number of cases that were being heard in Strasbourg shows, and this was one of the reasons for incorporating the Convention into our legislation (although we haven't taken on board all of the protocols, interestingly....). This is why the lead up was branded as "Bringing Rights Home".

I know that Article 3 is rarely cited in family law cases, as the Children Act already deals with the prospect of risk of harm to the child, which has to be balanced with what rights the parents have. It's based on the "balance of probabilities"; it's not a high burden of proof, but some of cases we were referred to were remarkable in their decisions and reasoning. Policy has recently focused and encouraged keeping children in the family home wherever possible. For the majority of cases, this is working. It is a shame that tragedies like this one still occur, but as the facts are emerging, it isn't black or white. It is muddying the waters, if you ask me.

I have just read up on 'moral panics' for one of my latest assignments, and the power and control that the media has is quite frightening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Good luck with that. Based on your effectiveness at making your points in these posts i'm sure you'll do well

Are you hoping to practice as a barrister or solicitor?

Thanks! Barrister (I love a good argument). The Beeb has started to show a new series about them, and although it is competitive, the examples they showed of the students didn't exactly dent my confidence! Although I may have to lose the Lestoh accent lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted
Thanks! Barrister (I love a good argument). The Beeb has started to show a new series about them, and although it is competitive, the examples they showed of the students didn't exactly dent my confidence! Although I may have to lose the Lestoh accent lol

Well good luck

I saw the first episode and know well two of the barristers appearing in the series

From the trailer at the end of the programme one of them is definitely in the next instalment so I'm looking forward to that

As for the accent the bar is apparently embracing diversity so don't go too BBC/plummy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'm sure Thracian that with your sense of fairness you'll be the first to acknowledge that the vast majority of those who take their "pound of flesh" (otherwise referred to as "salary") do an excellent job in protecting our vulnerable children. Cases of physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect are not uncommon. I suspect these things are no more or less prevalent than in the past and short of a predictive genetic test or some radical , perhaps Orwellian, interference imposed by government they will not be eradicated.

I don't believe that any workable system can wipe out child abuse in our society. Our present system seeks to identify significantly defective parenting and if possible improve it to a "good enough" standard. In appropriate cases children are removed from their parents ,often permanently, for their own protection.

Of course the system is flawed. As with most areas of life there are excellent, competent and inadequate individuals involved in its operation. If you want excellence across the board then quite frankly the government are going to have to cough up some additional funding to attract more people of a good calibre to front line social work and fund rather than cut back the courts so that action can be taken in appropriate cases

As for your second point who is to judge who is a wacko, misfit bully or sadist? In some cases it may be blindingly obvious but there will be many cases where your perception of what qualifies will be different from that of many others. And having identified these individuals, what is to be done - permanent incarceration, sterilisation/castration, something else or all of the above? Should these be the consequences for example for someone who may appear to be a "misfit" by virtue of wearing checked trousers in a public place ? ( word of caution - as a golfer Thracian you may be at risk ;) )

By way of example many women suffer depression after giving birth. This often lasts for months and sometimes years. In this state some of these women will pose a risk to their child and a tiny minority will cause that child significant harm. Is it right that society should remove children from all mothers post birth or all mothers who may have a predisposition to such an illness. Of those mothers who do suffer such depression the vast majority provide their child with good loving care.

For understandable reasons these sort of cases provoke knee-jerk reactions but surely it would be wrong to move towards a Brave New World type of society.

An inevitable consequence of the current media/political reaction is that many social workers /judges will be so frightened for their own position that there will be children who are wrongly and permanently removed from their natural families. This is a tragedy of a different kind.

So the system is fallible and the Baby P case will not be the last of its type but overall it is thorough and fair and strikes a balance between the rights of the child to be protected from significant harm and the rights of children to grow up within their birth family (and the harm of wrongful removal)

You make some excellent points which I mostly accept. I'm not an intellectual and have pretended or sought to be. My appoach is and always would be governed by two groups of three words..."what is fair" and "what will help".

You are probably right, but I don't know, that child abuse is inevitable even long term.

It won't be eased much today because what we have are endless numbers of outside-of-family individuals all putting in their fourpennyworth. Endless discussions, endless opinions, constant reference to how actions fit in with complex laws, the problems of potential misjudgement etc and forever.

And all that while the problems have become infinitely more complicated, more numerous, and therefore harder to monitor.

The erosion of family by the modern social manipulators and the massive problems caused by the arrival of multi-ethnic peoples from all over the world has only increased the extent and variety of problems and the difficulty in finding solutions.

To a great extent communities were the guardians in the past. Families often lived together in the same area. They kept a lookout for their own and to some extent that works. I couldn't have an affair if I wanted one nor could I harm my kids, God forbid, because my own close family simply wouldn't put up with it. But it doesn't always work, unfortunately.

And if you've just moved from Eastern Europe and you live a virtually friendless life in the middle of a soulless City with your woman, your kids and the coming kiddy, who's to notice if a nipper is left in a room all day, abused or neglected?

Multiply these instances infinitely and you get a situation that creates endless jobs for social workers but no real answers. Espeically if some of the so-called monitors are corrupt in some way or fearful of any threats they might get which is more likely.

I was never talking about misfits who wear odd clothes or who delight in displaying individualism. But I don't need a degree in human behaviour, or a second and third opinion, to know a bad un. Evil emanates from evil people like an odour. It may be hard to explain at first or even to identify but it's there and it can't be hidden.

I know before I ever know why. Twice I told my sister not to get married - who would ever do that if you weren't certain. Twice my sister ended up in tears afterwards wishing she had listened.

But how would you go about reducing abuse? There is no collective answer, only individual answers according to individual cases. But the more constaints society imposes on itself the fewer choices any wise man who might sit in judgement has.

Having kids taken into care would be almost as scary to me as leaving kids with inadequate parents, especially when you think back to the days of the Frank Beck regime in Leicestershire and he was by no means alone. Is there any better place for evil people to hide than somewhere they have authority and where they deal with vulnerable people?

It's not immediate but one big answer lies though in the power of community. So communities need to be attactive and to be places worth staying.

And they need to serve children by getting them into positive areas of development - cubs, scouts, theatre, dancing, sea cadets, marshall arts, things involving the care of animals and plants and so on. Places where they gain experience, build friendships and are surrounded by people doing positive, constructive things for the greater good.

These things all increase the power of communication and the development of trust among friends. The individual's protective family gets broader and when things are amiss, friends will notice as they used to notice when people lived in villages or much smaller communities than they do today.

It should also be noticed if kids don't join any of these things and don't communicate.

In other words, by and large, education is the way forward to a safer community. But by that I mean education not just in classrooms (something I'm not always sold on) but through experience and through contribution so increasing communication and the power of expression I mentioned.

And we must get away from the "be careful" brigade.

Almost from the day they can walk kids need to be encouraged to be brave and to accept challenges. From a young age people should realise that kids are going to be the next parents. They need to have the skills, the confience and the experience to cope. How the hell do they understand pain if they don't suffer any?

The more who do cope and who do become good parents, the easier it will be to see and help those who are not and who cannot/do not cope.

And it's help they need. Not punishment as such. But the help needs to be constructive and effective. And it needs to benefit not only the evil doer but the people who are or are likely to be the victims of his/her evil.

Edited by Thracian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted
I know what he is trying to do, but he is confusing the issue, which is why I questioned it.

The ECHR has nothing to do with European politics. European politics concerns the expansion and maintenance of a common market. Its interests are economic.

The ECHR was the brainchild of British politicians, and was drafted by British lawyers, in the main. This was one of the reasons we haven't incorporated it until recently, as it was felt we didn't need to, seeing as we'd come up with the idea!! The Court sits outside of the politics of the EC, and is an entity in its own right.

As for Article 8, remember that the parent's rights have to be balanced with the child's Article 3 rights (not suffer degrading or inhuman treatment).

With regards to the legislation, it wasn't that long ago that we had knee jerk reactions over Social Services taking children from their families indiscriminately. No "better safe than sorry" attitude then! So due to popular demand, the processes are changed, and still it's wrong! What will happen now is we'll just go back to removing children from their homes on the off-chance, and it'll be back to square one.

What has happened to this child is wrong, and I hope the mother, her boyfriend and friend suffer by the principle of "what goes around, comes around". But I can't help but feel that there is a lack of perspective with this case. Yes, there has been a cock up, and those responsible will pay for it sooner or later. This case will undermine the good work that the authorities do with children. Some of the comments I have seen on facebook from friends who I thought were rational are totally OTT, especially before the facts started to come out ("I hope social workers die" was one from Friday or Saturday).

I used a small "p" for the phrase European politics and see no reason why this country should be subject to a European Court (of Human Rights or whatever) any more than European economic dictates, especially when, by your own admission, the legislation doesn't work (creating first one problem, then anther) and especially when European policical directives mean that thousands of tons of perfectly edible fish have to be thrown back in the sea, dead, while legions of kids in various parts of the world are starving.

I'm not against international co-operation but our courts and our parliament have had centuries of dealing with our country and, flawed as they are, I'd sooner be subject to their mistakes because they are likely to be easier to oppose. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Europe. Otherwise the labour government wouldn't have been so keen to avoid a referendum they were going to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
I used a small "p" for the phrase European politics and see no reason why this country should be subject to a European Court (of Human Rights or whatever) any more than European economic dictates, especially when, by your own admission, the legislation doesn't work (creating first one problem, then anther) and especially when European policical directives mean that thousands of tons of perfectly edible fish have to be thrown back in the sea, dead, while legions of kids in various parts of the world are starving.

I'm not against international co-operation but our courts and our parliament have had centuries of dealing with our country and, flawed as they are, I'd sooner be subject to their mistakes because they are likely to be easier to oppose. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Europe. Otherwise the labour government wouldn't have been so keen to avoid a referendum they were going to lose.

But decisions of the European Parliament, Council or the Courts of Justice have nothing to do with the Court of Human Rights! The decisions of one cannot be accredited to another.

As for blaming the Labour government, wasn't Ted Heath, the man who campaigned quite vigorously for us to be involved in the Economic Union, a Conservative?

And the failing legislation in this country predates the HRA!

At the end of the day, any failings in our child protection policy are our own making, not Europe's. Our legislators failing to come up with an adequate response following knee-jerk reactions of our public because of our mass media. Skinnydipper and I have both alluded to the way the law has swung one way, then the other, and how we both fear that it's going to go back to the other extreme. If anything, it looks like we, as a country, aren't capable of sorting out the problem ourselves!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted (edited)
It won't be eased much today because what we have are endless numbers of outside-of-family individuals all putting in their fourpennyworth. Endless discussions, endless opinions, constant reference to how actions fit in with complex laws, the problems of potential misjudgement etc and forever.

The erosion of family by the modern social manipulators and the massive problems caused by the arrival of multi-ethnic peoples from all over the world has only increased the extent and variety of problems and the difficulty in finding solutions.

To a great extent communities were the guardians in the past. Families often lived together in the same area. They kept a lookout for their own and to some extent that works. I couldn't have an affair if I wanted one nor could I harm my kids, God forbid, because my own close family simply wouldn't put up with it. But it doesn't always work, unfortunately.

Multiply these instances infinitely and you get a situation that creates endless jobs for social workers but no real answers. Espeically if some of the so-called monitors are corrupt in some way or fearful of any threats they might get which is more likely.

I was never talking about misfits who wear odd clothes or who delight in displaying individualism. But I don't need a degree in human behaviour, or a second and third opinion, to know a bad un. Evil emanates from evil people like an odour. It may be hard to explain at first or even to identify but it's there and it can't be hidden

Having kids taken into care would be almost as scary to me as leaving kids with inadequate parents, especially when you think back to the days of the Frank Beck regime in Leicestershire and he was by no means alone. Is there any better place for evil people to hide than somewhere they have authority and where they deal with vulnerable people?

It's not immediate but one big answer lies though in the power of community. So communities need to be attactive and to be places worth staying.

In other words, by and large, education is the way forward to a safer community. But by that I mean education not just in classrooms (something I'm not always sold on) but through experience and through contribution so increasing communication and the power of expression I mentioned.

I knew that you would give a detailed response Thracian. You raise some interesting points.

I've got to go and earn a crust in a minute so here's a quick response to some of your points

1. My understanding of the Laming inquiry and the baby P case is that one of the failings identified was the failure to talk and refer, particularly on an inter-agency basis i.e different agencies had seperate pieces of the jigsaw which they kept to themselves with a result that no one saw the whole picture. Multi -disciplinary case conferences and inter agency sharing of information ( e.g social services ,police, education,healthcare) are considered an essential tool of an overall protective stategy

2. I'm not sure that I agree with your point in respect of immigration. The specific example you provide is of course valid but in my experience many of our immigrant societies have a stronger sense of community than our indigenous population

3. I agree that a sense of community is a positive factor. I experience this in my own small village. The Orkney case however illustrates that community can mask as well as protect from abuse

4. I don't believe that social workers leaving children in risky circumstances because they are frightened for their own safety or corrupt is a significant factor. I do believe that a not insignificant minority are either not properly trained or just not up to the job

5.If it is true that you can smell evil you ought to patent the design. You'll never need to sell another watch again. Evil is sometimes obvious but often insidious. It is of course not defined by class, race or appearance. Indeed one of the reccomendations of the Laming inquiry was that social workers should be aware that abusers are likely to be deceitful and manipulative.If you truly bhave these powers you might get a part in Heroes. Altenatively you could apply to customs or social services for a job. A fair society could never remove children from their parents because of hunches

6. You're right that education is the key. Many inadequate parents don't know how to parent because they have no experience of adequate parenting. In the Utopian world you break the cycle by educating these parents who then pass on their acquired skills to their own children. The other problem is that there are others who received good parenting but are just simply cvnts

It's pie in the sky to think we can eradicate child abuse but we can create a better system to support ,educate and monitor those families where there are risk factors

Edited by skinnydipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted (edited)
I knew that you would give a detailed response Thracian. You raise some interesting points.

I've got to go and earn a crust in a minute so here's a quick response to some of your points

1. My understanding of the Laming inquiry and the baby P case is that one of the failings identified was the failure to talk and refer, particularly on an inter-agency basis i.e different agencies had seperate pieces of the jigsaw which they kept to themselves with a result that no one saw the whole picture. Multi -disciplinary case conferences and inter agency sharing of information ( e.g social services ,police, education,healthcare) are considered an essential tool of an overall protective stategy

2. I'm not sure that I agree with your point in respect of immigration. The specific example you provide is of course valid but in my experience many of our immigrant societies have a stronger sense of community than our indigenous population

3. I agree that a sense of community is a positive factor. I experience this in my own small village. The Orkney case however illustrates that community can mask as well as protect from abuse

4. I don't believe that social workers leaving children in risky circumstances because they are frightened for their own safety or corrupt is a significant factor. I do believe that a not insignificant minority are either not properly trained or just not up to the job

5.If it is true that you can smell evil you ought to patent the design. You'll never need to sell another watch again. Evil is sometimes obvious but often insidious. It is of course not defined by class, race or appearance. Indeed one of the reccomendations of the Laming inquiry was that social workers should be aware that abusers are likely to be deceitful and manipulative.If you truly bhave these powers you might get a part in Heroes. Altenatively you could apply to customs or social services for a job. A fair society could never remove children from their parents because of hunches

6. You're right that education is the key. Many inadequate parents don't know how to parent because they have no experience of adequate parenting. In the Utopian world you break the cycle by educating these parents who then pass on their acquired skills to their own children. The other problem is that there are others who received good parenting but are just simply cvnts

It's pie in the sky to think we can eradicate child abuse but we can create a better system to support ,educate and monitor those families where there are risk factors

In respect of:

1. A "too many cooks" situation will always generate petty jealousies, the failure to share full information and therefore the chance of mistakes. It is unfortunate that the very idea of multiple layers of expertise provides multiple levels of potential error.

2) The specific point is valid and was not in any way intended to imply that immigrant societies have a weaker sense of community. Look through the mugshots of child abusers and they wouldn't belong to any one nationality or community at all - but a significant proportion would be non-native and those proportions would reflect the increase in the number of problems that have been imported.

3) I had the Orkney case in mind when I acknowledged that communities did not always provide the necessary safe protection for children.

4) Either way it shows up weaknesses within the system.

5) I don't apply to anyone for jobs adn tehy wouldn't give me one if I did. :D

But, funny you mention customs. A very close relative was once one of the highest ranking customs officers in the UK and his brother was even more strategically employed in monitoring bad guys but that comes under the OSA. I make mistakes and don't claim any special powers. But put that close family background alongside a few years as an investigative journalist, more years reporting court cases and further time working among the wheeler/dealer community and it would be surprising if I'd not become sensitive to good and evil, honesty and dishonesty.

On two occasions recently my altogether more trusting wife has made mistakes. On both occasions I forewarned her the people she was dealing with were bad uns. Hopefully they were separate lessons well learned but when she asked me later to explain how I knew with such certainty it was hard to explain. Their constant talking, their unnatural movements, the way they changed their positions, their rapid change of subject focus, the unnaturalness of the situation, their inability to maintain eye contact, subtle nervous getures, the clues were endless.

Trouble is not everyone wants to spot evil in people. If you have a natural inclination to think of people as "good" it is hard for them to have to confront the prospect of anyone being bad. It is the sort of mistake that has lead to many a bad marriage, I'm afraid, including two by my own sister that I did vainly advise her against. Point is, she didn't want to see and why should that matter? Because my sister is one of the social workers you mention!.

6) Unfortunately what you say is about all we can logically expect. I'm not quite sure about "good parenting" sometimes producing bad kids. Depends on your definition of "good" I suppose. Yes, I know people can flip unexpectedly for one reason or another but generally, genuinely "good" parenting would arm a child to cope with the potential pitfalls, pressures and realities of life. Big subject though and one that would require some convincing research to form a defendable opinion.

As for your better system to protect the vulnerable, that's fine and something we'd all support, I'm sure. But we also need to deal with the abusers and that is where our socialist society seems to falter so badly. They just don't seem able to get their heads around the twin concepts of human rights and appropriate punishment/treatment for wrongdoers.

Only today a newspaper referred to a case where a man spent a night in prison for smacking his son. All and sundry including several police and a child welfare officer were on the case and it only emphasised what I said about overkill for the little things and no-one being there when it really matters for the big ones. The parent was worried, entirely right in punishing his child and should never have had his authority brought to task in such a bullying manner.

But Baby P is dead.

People will take their pay, make all sorts of fuss where the situation is harmless, when there's no real threat to themselves and where they can show their authority. But they'll sidestep the flak when it's real evil involved and there's genuine fear of consequences. When I talk about spotting evil, it has sod all to do with a parent smacking his disobedient child's backside.

Edited by Thracian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted (edited)
In respect of:

1. A "too many cooks" situation will always generate petty jealousies, the failure to share full information and therefore the chance of mistakes. It is unfortunate that the very idea of multiple layers of expertise provides multiple levels of potential error.

2) The specific point is valid and was not in any way intended to imply that immigrant societies have a weaker sense of community. Look through the mugshots of child abusers and they wouldn't belong to any one nationality or community at all - but a significant proportion would be non-native and those proportions would reflect the increase in the number of problems that have been imported.

3) I had the Orkney case in mind when I acknowledged that communities did not always provide the necessary safe protection for children.

4) Either way it shows up weaknesses within the system.

5) I don't apply to anyone for jobs adn tehy wouldn't give me one if I did. :D

But, funny you mention customs. A very close relative was once one of the highest ranking customs officers in the UK and his brother was even more strategically employed in monitoring bad guys but that comes under the OSA. I make mistakes and don't claim any special powers. But put that close family background alongside a few years as an investigative journalist, more years reporting court cases and further time working among the wheeler/dealer community and it would be surprising if I'd not become sensitive to good and evil, honesty and dishonesty.

On two occasions recently my altogether more trusting wife has made mistakes. On both occasions I forewarned her the people she was dealing with were bad uns. Hopefully they were separate lessons well learned but when she asked me later to explain how I knew with such certainty it was hard to explain. Their constant talking, their unnatural movements, the way they changed their positions, their rapid change of subject focus, the unnaturalness of the situation, their inability to maintain eye contact, subtle nervous getures, the clues were endless.

Trouble is not everyone wants to spot evil in people. If you have a natural inclination to think of people as "good" it is hard for them to have to confront the prospect of anyone being bad. It is the sort of mistake that has lead to many a bad marriage, I'm afraid, including two by my own sister that I did vainly advise her against. Point is, she didn't want to see and why should that matter? Because my sister is one of the social workers you mention!.

6) Unfortunately what you say is about all we can logically expect. I'm not quite sure about "good parenting" sometimes producing bad kids. Depends on your definition of "good" I suppose. Yes, I know people can flip unexpectedly for one reason or another but generally, genuinely "good" parenting would arm a child to cope with the potential pitfalls, pressures and realities of life. Big subject though and one that would require some convincing research to form a defendable opinion.

As for your better system to protect the vulnerable, that's fine and something we'd all support, I'm sure. But we also need to deal with the abusers and that is where our socialist society seems to falter so badly. They just don't seem able to get their heads around the twin concepts of human rights and appropriate punishment/treatment for wrongdoers.

Only today a newspaper referred to a case where a man spent a night in prison for smacking his son. All and sundry including several police and a child welfare officer were on the case and it only emphasised what I said about overkill for the little things and no-one being there when it really matters for the big ones. The parent was worried, entirely right in punishing his child and should never have had his authority brought to task in such a bullying manner.

But Baby P is dead.

People will take their pay, make all sorts of fuss where the situation is harmless, when there's no real threat to themselves and where they can show their authority. But they'll sidestep the flak when it's real evil involved and there's genuine fear of consequences. When I talk about spotting evil, it has sod all to do with a parent smacking his disobedient child's backside.

Here goes

1.I don't think that you quite understand the point.The failings aren't related to agencies guarding their own information through petty jealousies, nor are they the result of a multi layered approach. The real failing is the lack of communication between agencies on the single level( e.g at the the Child Protection Case Conference and in everyday working life) so as to provide a cohesive picture of the child's situation and the measurement and management of risk arising from the circumstances.Your bdifficulty in grasping the real issue is understandable as a lay-person informed by the media.

2. Save for differences in the culture of certain ethnic groups ( e.g Zimbabwean children are more likely to be physically chastised because it is the norm in that society in contrast to our own culture where it is now generally frowned upon) there is no increased incidence of abuse amongst ethnic minorities .

3. Noted.

4.Of course there are weaknesses in the system. It's a complex system striving to strike a delicate balance in an imperfect world.

5.The reference to Customs enables me to illustrate my point regarding your nose for a badun . Whenever I go through customs there is nothing illicit in my luggage but boy do I look guilty. My face goes red and I feel uneasy and I just can't explain why. I'd worry that in Thracian's world of trial by hunch I'd probably be taken away and thrown in a cell because even though I'd done nothing wrong I sure as hell looked guilty

6.Some people are bad parents because of their own experiences, others for organic reasons. So I do think that there are some individuals who are bad parents notwithstanding that they have been the recipients of good parenting themselves. Such situations create new cycles of abuse

The better system that I hope for is a preventative system more capably equipped to minimise the frequency of cases of this type. Punishment is only appropriate through the criminal court when the protective system has been unable to prevent the evil. This is only my personal opinion but for these type of offenders I don't believe the risk of a lengthy prison sentence is a significant deterrent

The newspaper article that you refer to demonstrates the likelihood of the scales tipping too far the other way as various individuals and organisations strive to demonstate their protective abilities

As I said , it's an imperfect world

Edited by skinnydipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted
I have to say, if I was taking this voting thing seriously I'd be putting skinnydipper in for the debating one - I'm impressed. :appl:
Taking on Thrac and Lisa- he's got some balls (that he normally shows off when diving into the pool :P )

Thank you chaps. This site provides me with a bit of escapism and admittedly 99% of what I post is pap. I've enjoyed a bit of intelligent debate with Lisa and Thracian and the struggle of trying to keep my head above the water

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hairy

hairy

Posted
Posted

Father raping daughters causing 19 pregnancies

Father's rape abuse on daughters

A father repeatedly raped his two daughters during a campaign of abuse which resulted in 19 pregnancies, a court has heard.

The 56-year-old, of Sheffield, had earlier pleaded guilty to 25 rapes and four indecent assaults.

The attacks led to nine children being born, two of whom died. The other 10 pregnancies were miscarried or aborted.

Sheffield Crown Court was told he "took pleasure" in knowing the harm he was doing to his daughters.

The court heard that the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, threatened them with a "real hiding" if they refused to have sex with him.

Nicholas Campbell QC said: "All the defendant's children spoke of his domination over their family life. He was tall and strongly built."

Mr Campbell said the father "liked to think that he was the hard man".

He added: "All the family were frightened of him. When they heard his car pulling up outside the house, the children and their mother ran to their respective rooms."

He will be sentenced later.

Two things:-

1. Why are the names of these people being withheld in the case of Baby P too?

2. Why has this been removed from the BBC top news stories and hidden away under local news?

Just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted (edited)
Thank you chaps. This site provides me with a bit of escapism and admittedly 99% of what I post is pap. I've enjoyed a bit of intelligent debate with Lisa and Thracian and the struggle of trying to keep my head above the water

I'm as appreciative as Daggers. :thumbup:

Don't know about the "trial by hunch" idea though. Catch me on a bad day and people who harm kids would be lucky to get a trial at all.

Edited by Thracian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1. Why are the names of these people being withheld in the case of Baby P too?

The mother has another daughter, so withholding the names is supposed to protect the identity of the daughter.

Seeing as the internet has the mother's ugly face and details plastered all over it has scuppered that one. I just hope that the poor girl doesn't get stick off of some brain dead moron, for what her mother has done to her little brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...