[billy123]

Dumb sensationalist thread title its a horrible thing to have happened absolutely sickening but you lay the blame at the door of social services?!?! really? get a bloody grip man.
Social services do an amazing job they stop thousands of things like this happening every year but when something like this happens you post they "fail again" how often do you hear about the thousands of times they have succesfully stepped in and potentially saved a childs life? never and would you make a thread praising them for it? no would you hell.
A sense of perspective is whats needed Angus if you dont have one i hear this rag is read by such people

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Dumb sensationalist thread title its a horrible thing to have happened absolutely sickening but you lay the blame at the door of social services?!?! really? get a bloody grip man.

Social services do an amazing job they stop thousands of things like this happening every year but when something like this happens you post they "fail again" how often do you hear about the thousands of times they have succesfully stepped in and potentially saved a childs life? never and would you make a thread praising them for it? no would you hell.
A sense of perspective is whats needed Angus if you dont have one i hear this rag is read by such people

I'm not entirely sure which 'man' your telling to get a grip!

you might want to actually read the facts, and not get all dazzled by the supposed sensationalism that you mention - or indeed, have a go at Angus for linking a DM report. In case the DM isn't to your taste, perhaps one from the BBC which I quoted earlier in this thread will help you.

Few things here. 4 social workers involved in the case have been taken to task regarding this case. Social Services themselves admit it was not handled well.

It is clear from this that there are areas where we could have done better, and as a result four members of staff have been subject to disciplinary investigations.
"Two of the staff members (social workers) are now being brought before formal disciplinary hearings, and the other two staff - while not facing formal disciplinary hearings - are now subject to management instruction and oversight of their work."

The baby had previously been taken off the mother, but then given back to her - despite there being no evidence to say the mother had improved on her previous position of being unable to care for the child - the very reason they took baby from her - but still, that didn't stop them giving her the child back and signing his death warrant. Nor did 17 expressions of concern from the public made to social services, alert them to addressing the problem.

The baby was briefly taken out of her care but returned to her after social workers ruled the likelihood of significant harm was low.Alex was subject to a Child in Need plan until June 2009 when Sutherland was judged to be able to offer a "good enough" standard of care, "despite a lack of evidence of progress", the review found.

It also found she had missed health appointments, that Alex's weight had plummeted and there were concerns about her alcohol use.

The review added it was of "particular concern" that 17 expressions of concern from members of the public failed to trigger a reconsideration of initial assessments of Alex's care, despite agencies knowing of Sutherland's alcohol misuse.

What amazingly good job did social services do in this case then, apart from botch it up in no small way, which ultimately, cost this child, on the 'at risk' register, his life. Yes, wonderful service from them eh.

Social services are there to do a job, they are trained and paid to care and look after those who cannot do so themselves - and let's be honest, cases such as this are becoming more prevailant - not less.... so let's not pretend all in the garden is rosy. Certainly not when this particular division of Social Services have ADMITTED it could have been handled better and admitted they failed.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not entirely sure which 'man' your telling to get a grip!

you might want to actually read the facts, and not get all dazzled by the supposed sensationalism that you mention - or indeed, have a go at Angus for linking a DM report. In case the DM isn't to your taste, perhaps one from the BBC which I quoted earlier in this thread will help you.

Well seeing as i named angus in my post and also referred to the thread title as my bugbear i would of thought it obvious that i was indeed talking about angus maybe you need to re-read my post.

I wasnt actually aware that the original report was from the daily fail but does that suprise me? well i will leave that up to you to decide.
Short of social services providing a care worker to sit and observe a baby and its parents 24 hours a day what do you suggest?

They have to make a decision in the very limited time they have do you think you could get it right 100% of the time? you only hear about the tiny percentage of the time they get it wrong.(so in my book they must be doing a pretty great job)

If you have a better system that is completely 100% foolproof then please enlighten society with it because social services would love to know about it

I look forward to hearing all about it.

edit: please pyramid dont take that as personal criticism (as i really like your posts) but complaints should come with constructive alternatives otherwise they are just noise.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Well seeing as i named angus in my post and also referred to the thread title as my bugbear i would of thought it obvious that i was indeed talking about angus maybe you need to re-read my post.

I wasnt actually aware that the original report was from the daily fail but does that suprise me? well i will leave that up to you to decide.
Short of social services providing a care worker to sit and observe a baby and its parents 24 hours a day what do you suggest?

They have to make a decision in the very limited time they have do you think you could get it right 100% of the time? you only hear about the tiny percentage of the time they get it wrong.(so in my book they must be doing a pretty great job)

If you have a better system that is completely 100% foolproof then please enlighten society with it because social services would love to know about it

I look forward to hearing all about it.

edit: please pyramid dont take that as personal criticism (as i really like your posts) but complaints should come with constructive alternatives otherwise they are just noise.

I was under the impression that Angus was female - which is the reason I asked! I also asked because they were not the only person to have the same opinion - I happen to share it - and it could also have been directed at me - given that I also started a thread that was merged. 2 fairly understandable reasons for my asking which 'man' you were referring to.

What do I suggest? I suggest that Social Services do what they are specially trained to do, are paid to do: and that is their job. If anyone else failed to such a degree in their paid employment would be booted out on their arses - bearing in mind the amount of failings that surrounded this case. 17 alerts from the public. Baby handed back without any signs of the unfit mother mending her ways. Being aware that baby was losing weight, being aware of the unfit mother's continuing problems - yet none of this, none of the 17 public alerts were enough to flag up,"Hey..we'd better keep a close eye on this one....". How much prompting do they need? How many times do the public have to express their concern (over a child that had already been taken off the mother previously due to her inability to look after him).

Regardless of which job role is being discussed: a great many don't mean that failing will result in the loss of a life -and in the most horrific ways (as in this particular case). - so it's all the more important that social services get it right. Get it wrong is far higher a price to pay. As I say, for all of the reasons that I meantioned above (which I also mentioned in my earlier post) - that's why I don't feel this division of SS should be beyond critisism or beyond reproach.

How many 'red flags', how many alerts, warnings, triggers would they have needed before they decided to go check on things. If ever there was the case for making an 'on the spot' decision to protect this child, it appears they had plenty of opportunity but still failed to do that.

As I say, the price of the them getting it wrong is death - and as this case shows: not only did they get it wrong - they had so many valid reasons for acting - yet STILL failed to do so.

It seems as though Soc Serv haven't really moved on or learned that much from the horrible suffering and neglectful death of Baby P.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I was under the impression that Angus was female - which is the reason I asked! I also asked because they were not the only person to have the same opinion - I happen to share it - and it could also have been directed at me - given that I also started a thread that was merged. 2 fairly understandable reasons for my asking which 'man' you were referring to.

What do I suggest? I suggest that Social Services do what they are specially trained to do, are paid to do: and that is their job. If anyone else failed to such a degree in their paid employment would be booted out on their arses - bearing in mind the amount of failings that surrounded this case. 17 alerts from the public. Baby handed back without any signs of the unfit mother mending her ways. Being aware that baby was losing weight, being aware of the unfit mother's continuing problems - yet none of this, none of the 17 public alerts were enough to flag up,"Hey..we'd better keep a close eye on this one....". How much prompting do they need? How many times do the public have to express their concern (over a child that had already been taken off the mother previously due to her inability to look after him).

Regardless of which job role is being discussed: a great many don't mean that failing will result in the loss of a life -and in the most horrific ways (as in this particular case). - so it's all the more important that social services get it right. Get it wrong is far higher a price to pay. As I say, for all of the reasons that I meantioned above (which I also mentioned in my earlier post) - that's why I don't feel this division of SS should be beyond critisism or beyond reproach.

How many 'red flags', how many alerts, warnings, triggers would they have needed before they decided to go check on things. If ever there was the case for making an 'on the spot' decision to protect this child, it appears they had plenty of opportunity but still failed to do that.

As I say, the price of the them getting it wrong is death - and as this case shows: not only did they get it wrong - they had so many valid reasons for acting - yet STILL failed to do so.

It seems as though Soc Serv haven't really moved on or learned that much from the horrible suffering and neglectful death of Baby P.

A female called angus thats a strange one!
You still havent described how you personally would come up with a 100% system of securing a childs safety!

Social services do an amazing job and i dare say make a hell of a lot less mistakes in their job than you and people in your proffesion do whatever that may be.

Please enlighten us mere mortals how 100% perfection can be acquired have you never made one single mistake in your job? no i doubt it but that mistake doesnt make national news does it.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by bobnot

A female called angus thats a strange one!
You still havent described how you personally would come up with a 100% system of securing a childs safety!

Social services do an amazing job and i dare say make a hell of a lot less mistakes in their job than you and people in your proffesion do whatever that may be im beginning to smell a privately educated person in the private sector here and of course they are perfect

Please enlighten us mere mortals how 100% perfection can be acquired have you never made one single mistake in your job? no i doubt it but that mistake doesnt make national news does it.

There is a town in Scotland called Angus. It doesn't necessarily have to correlate to gender. Pyramid doesn't evoke an automatic gender association - neither does Angus, but as I said earlier, I was under the impression from other posts, that Angus was female. (apols Angus58 if you aren't!!)

Privately educated person here (age 11 onwards, up to then, most certainly state schools), who works in a very privately owned sector - and has done for the vast majority of my 20 working years. I've also worked in various goverment depts as well as in the NHS - and a as far as the government depts are concerned, a lazier, shoddier type of workforce I have never encountered in my life.

No need for the superscillious tone. I'm quite entitled to my opinion, I'm quite entitled to validate my opinion by the reasons I have already given -so there is no need for you to make this personal. If my job involved an error which could result in the death of an young child, I'd most certainly ensure that I was beyond reproach every single step of the way.

I'll ask you again... how many red flags, warning lights, public expressions of concern, do you think they should have allowed to pass before taking any action? It appears very much that you think they were quite correct not to take action - giving that you don't seem to agree that in this case, that is has been handled terribly.

We aren't speaking of the services they provide overall in which they provide the attention that is needed - afterall, as I said, that is the very purpose, the very existence of the role of a social worker, it's the reason they are there. If they fail and at such levels as this: it is quite correct that they are brought into question. It is this particular section, those who deal with children who are at risk, that they know are at risk, that's the side of Social Services departments that I fail to be impressed with.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

There is a town in Scotland called Angus. It doesn't necessarily have to correlate to gender. Pyramid doesn't evoke an automatic gender association - neither does Angus, but as I said earlier, I was under the impression from other posts, that Angus was female. (apols Angus58 if you aren't!!)

Privately educated person here (age 11 onwards, up to then, most certainly state schools), who works in a very privately owned sector - and has done for the vast majority of my 20 working years. I've also worked in various goverment depts as well as in the NHS - and a as far as the government depts are concerned, a lazier, shoddier type of workforce I have never encountered in my life.

No need for the superscillious tone. I'm quite entitled to my opinion, I'm quite entitled to validate my opinion by the reasons I have already given -so there is no need for you to make this personal. If my job involved an error which could result in the death of an young child, I'd most certainly ensure that I was beyond reproach every single step of the way.

I'll ask you again... how many red flags, warning lights, public expressions of concern, do you think they should have allowed to pass before taking any action? It appears very much that you think they were quite correct not to take action - giving that you don't seem to agree that in this case, that is has been handled terribly.

We aren't speaking of the services they provide overall in which they provide the attention that is needed - afterall, as I said, that is the very purpose, the very existence of the role of a social worker, it's the reason they are there. If they fail and at such levels as this: it is quite correct that they are brought into question. It is this particular section, those who deal with children who are at risk, that they know are at risk, that's the side of Social Services departments that I fail to be impressed with.

Well firstly my as you would call it supercillious tone was recognized and that comment removed before you replied :P(but whilst you were replying i admit)
We arent going to agree on this.

Im not saying that social services are perfect who is?

Mistakes are inevitable that is the nature of any proffesion what matters isnt that a mistake was made it is whether anything is learnt from it.

If in this case the result was oh well we cant stop them all then i would be up in arms and abusing them for it but an investigation was launched and people were taken to task.
what more can be done nobody is perfect.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Dumb sensationalist thread title its a horrible thing to have happened absolutely sickening but you lay the blame at the door of social services?!?! really? get a bloody grip man.
Social services do an amazing job they stop thousands of things like this happening every year but when something like this happens you post they "fail again" how often do you hear about the thousands of times they have succesfully stepped in and potentially saved a childs life? never and would you make a thread praising them for it? no would you hell.
A sense of perspective is whats needed Angus if you dont have one i hear this rag is read by such people

Not quite sure why you have adopted such an aggressive stance - but I'm getting increasingly used to it for having the audacity to hold an opposite opinion to some on here.

Firstly, I am not a man, and am puzzled as to why you would think someone's avatar should reflect their gender
Secondly, I found the link to the paper on the BBC site, so kindly don't make assumptions about my paper of choice. I could just as easily stereotype some of the morons on here as Guardian readers
Thirdly, there is absolutely zero excuse in this particular case for the Social Services concerned to have allowed this baby to die. These so called "professionals" undergo years of training and should be able to detect such glaring and obvious danger signs.
Fourthly, this is not an isolated case, and lessons don't seem to have been learned from previous tragic incidents.

Daily Telegraph
Timeline of social services failures: from Victoria Climbie to Baby P
Here is a timeline of children who died after failures by social services.

Victoria Climbie, whose death led to the creation of the database Photo: PA8:00AM GMT 26 Feb 2010
Victoria Climbie – died Feb 2000

Eight-year-old girl starves to death after prolonged abuse at hands of guardians in London. Social workers, police and NHS had failed to raise alarm.

Outcome: Lord Laming report advises complete overhaul of child protection policies. Most of his 108 recommendations become law in 2004 Children Act.


David Stocker – died August 2001

Nine-year-old boy from Romford, Essex killed by overdose of salt fed him by mother, who is jailed for five years. Care workers had suspected she planned to do him harm.

Outcome: Independent review catalogues more than 25 failings by social services, police and Great Ormond Street hospital.


Trae-Bleu Layne – died October 2006

Three-year-old girl from Reading dies after overdosing on mother's methadone.

Outcome: Report finds no action taken to remove child from home despite domestic violence reports and warnings from neighbours. Reading council pledges to improve systems.


Baby P (Peter Connelly) – died August 2007

Endures agonising death in home shared by mother, her boyfriend and lodger in Haringey, north London. The 17-month-old suffers 50 injuries including broken back, allegedly missed by doctor.

Outcome: Head of children's services at Haringey council and four colleagues sacked. Series of damning inquiries reveal 60 missed opportunities to save Baby P's life. New report by Lord Laming concludes his Climbie reforms not widely implemented.


Demi Leigh Mahon – died July 2008

Two year-old girl beaten to death by teenage babysitter in Manchester, after social services ignore warnings about unreliability of drug-addict mother.

Outcome: Serious case review finds concerns of relatives and neighbours not followed up properly.



No-one disputes that Social Services in general provide a useful and life saving service, but there is absolutely NO excuse for any of these murdered children to have been left in the care of the people who eventually killed them. If you are suggesting that the occasional "mistake" (a child's death!) is just collateral damage, I'm afraid I find that totally unacceptable, and I have no need to apologise to you or anyone else for holding that opinion.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Not quite sure why you have adopted such an aggressive stance - but I'm getting increasingly used to it for having the audacity to hold an opposite opinion to some on here.

Firstly, I am not a man, and am puzzled as to why you would think someone's avatar should reflect their gender

. If you are suggesting that the occasional "mistake" (a child's death!) is just collateral damage, I'm afraid I find that totally unacceptable, and I have no need to apologise to you or anyone else for holding that opinion.

I was sure you were female, so thanks for clarifying.

Your last part sums up precisely what I wasn't able to articulate quite so finely.