Baby P witch hunt

Tracey's mother is Irish by the way

Apparently a child does at the hands of their parents every 10 days in the UK - most of these don't make the news or at least not in a major way. It doesn't seem newsworthy unless social services have been involved. Maybe there is different reporting bias in Ireland. Of course also a much smaller total population meaning these cases are rarer.

Or maybe there's a genuine difference. Is there the same level of poverty and deprivation in Ireland? I don't think there's the same class system there as always rears its ugly head in England.

Apparently the serious injury she missed didn't happen until after she had seen the child - which would explain how she missed a traumatic spinal fracture while noting all the older injuries.

Yes I think so. Women are always treated much more harshly for violent crime than men, bizarrely

Just watched it. The thing I find the most shocking is the corruption and cover up by great Ormond street and Ofsted. Also the use of baby p's death by the Tories to score political points. Obviously the sun's conduct being absolutely awful but being from Liverpool no surprises there.

The story of the doctor is tragic. Thrown under a bus by her employer and hounded by the press

Sharon shoesmith and the other social workers are the only ones who come out with any integrity

They aren’t- you just don’t hear as much about them.

The appearance of a boyfriend in the life of a woman like TC and her young child or children should always be a matter of the gravest concern. It's not just one more little thing. It's huge, and the results are so predictable it's a cliche.

Is the problem here the inability to take male violence seriously as a potential threat? A blind spot where everyone believes in some sort of happy ever after fairy tale, even when the male moves in soon after the start of the relationship, and nobody recalls all the dozens of previous cases where a boyfriend kicked, beat, or stomped a small child to death under the nose of the mother and the social services?

There were iirc four doctors initially at St Ann's Hospital. One quit (?) and one was on stress related leave, having noted the issues. It's possible the doctor who examined baby P didn't feel she was in a position to leave because the clinic would collapse with just one doctor. It was also implied in the documentary that she was thrilled to have a locum position at a clinic run by Ormond Street, and maybe felt it wouldn't be in the best interests of her career to leave or to rock the boat.

It remains that she failed to notice some very serious physical marks on Baby P, notes or no notes. Doctors are not supposed to rely on hints when doing a physical exam on a pediatric patient.

It's tempting to contrast the fate of the doctor with the subsequent history of the mother, but to be very blunt, this doctor dropped the ball.

It isn't all down to poverty. My girls are adopted from a similar background to baby p. The big problem is violent /paedophile men targeting vulnerable women for their homes, their children, their domestic labour, their benefits. The money disappears on alcohol, status dogs, gambling....the women are stuck.

Often they have learning disabilities and are socially isolated.

I agree with what you say about the cycle repeating, but it is incredibly difficult to disrupt it. One in 3 adoptions break down - adoptive parents often aren't able to turn things round. I know so many adopters who have tried everything but the children revert to the behaviours of their birth parents.

It is SO hard to remove children due to neglect. There is usually a single catastrophic incident that causes social services to swoop in, while ongoing problems are simply noted in the file.

I suppose they were taken into care?

The mother came from an abusive home just as baby P did. She's also the result of failed services. If baby P had lived he may well have grown up to abuse women or children too. The cycle goes on. I don't think there's anything to be gained from villifying the mother.

The answer lies in reducing poverty and inequality and providing services for those at the bottom of society. That's a less satisfying response than blaming an individual of course. There's a reason why most women in prison come from abusive backgrounds.

A child "saved" from abusive parents is not assured of a happy ending either - children's homes are notorious for problems - just look at the Rochdale scandal. A lucky child in care may go to a decent foster home and stay there until 16 at which point they are on their own. A more likely situation is several moves, no abuse but no one to really love or care for them, and again out at 16. It's not surprising that social workers try to avoid splitting families and sometimes get it wrong (especially when they're under so much pressure)

What about the other children being abused in the household?

Mum and her boyfriend and his brother killed him, not the father.
I remember there was some talk of Peters mum asking to see the children who were taken into care.
Wonder if she does? Wouldn't surprise me.
To think she was also.pregnant by him when they were caught.
Poor child having that as a mother and him for a father.
Imagine the shock when your told.
I still don't understand why they need to bring all this misery about and have kids they can't look after, aren't these creatures embarassed?
Why do they want to be hated?

Absolutely!! And nothing is black and white. Periods of chaos and then stability and just not meeting thresholds to remove etc

Haven’t read all the posts but I work in social work and I think people would be shocked just how many children are at risk but social workers hands are tied to do much as the evidence just isn’t there. There are a lot of devious parents who know how to play the system. It’s awful.

I agree the sentence is too lenient.

Entirely separately, I believe many so called professionals also bear a huge responsibility.

It is a huge responsibility to be a dr.

The doctor who last saw Baby P had no access to notes, wasn’t familiar with procedures around child protection in the UK

If that's true, she had no business taking the job. Anymore than i would claiming I could perform brain surgery.

Many safeguarding training sessions look at the abject failures in this case. They examine how each person could have made the outcome different.

I adopted two children who were severely neglected. Neither of their birth parents were charged with anything - this is really common. It is as if losing their children is punishment enough. So many adopters I know have similar - baby P's mother and her boyfriend only got convicted because he died. If the problems had been spotted before that, chances are he would have been removed but they wouldn't have been prosecuted.

I did the first year of a SW degree, then switched courses. It was abundantly clear to me through shadowing days that they are given a literally impossible workload, and are set up to fail. There’s no way they can possibly do everything they are meant to be doing, in the time they have. They are firefighting what seems most urgent at the time, and others fall through the cracks.

The alarming thing for me about that was that SWs have a statutory responsibility, that is that they are PERSONALLY accountable if a person ends up being harmed in some way when it’s one of their cases and they could, in theory, have prevented it. And that could result in a prison sentence, or as you say, a witch hunt. No ta, not for me.

@the7Vabo Also don’t complain of a witch hunt and then conduct one yourself against the judiciary and parole board. Every professional involved in this case has a role to play and some did them better than others. It’s undoubtedly true that the sentence was within the guidelines. Dominic Raab wanted to reform the parole board as Justice Secretary but he was moved on. He wanted ultimate control. A here today, gone tomorrow politician and no legal qualifications at all. Do we trust that scenario more? Hopefully not.

@the7Vabo If you argue the sentence was lenient, you have to look at the guidelines at the time. The sentence was not called in by the sec of state. It was indefinite, and it was not 5 years. The technicalities matter because they govern what a judge can hand down in terms of sentence. It cannot be what the public bays for. Or we would erect scaffolds.

We always call for longer sentences and they have become longer over time. This crime might well be sentenced differently now. However if you are not happy with the sentence, there’s little you can do. Find the money to build many more prisons and never trust the parole board I guess. Do look at the Parole programme on tv tonight. It’s part of a series about parole for prisoners.

Just watched this it's interesting to watch. The mother and the boyfriend and brother should have got a biggest sentence.