Tustin and Hughes thread 2

[Bagelsandbrie]

Continued from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4416690-Emma-Tustin-is-a-murderer

There’s no evidence that mum wasn’t asked to wipe his face (by the doctor btw, not the sw) or how that was recorded or taken forward.

The reports I saw said it was at a visit to the house by the sw that Peter Conelly's face was covered in chocolate and that the sw did not ask for his face to be wiped. In that case the house was an utter tip with dog poo all over the place and the kitchen was disgusting, the pictures shown of Peter's bedroom were equally bad so there was no 'clean and tidy' house scenario there. None of this seemed to have been a concern for the sw.

@IknowwhatIneed if you are talking about the Baby P case then his mum covered his face in chocolate when ordered by social services to take him to the hospital to be examined. The doctor didnt wipe his face or even examine him properly. His injuries were missed, not by the social worker, by the doctor.

In Daniel Pelka's case a doctor put his weight loss down to worms.

Its not just social workers failing these children, they just get all the blame.

Its not just social workers failing these children, they just get all the blame.

Always, and usually by people who have no idea what the job actually entails but can tell you what you should and shouldn’t be doing. I’ve been doing it long enough to be used to it 🤷‍♀️

Always, and usually by people who have no idea what the job actually entails but can tell you what you should and shouldn’t be doing.

I wasn’t wrong though, was I?

Congratulations, here’s your SW identification and 30 kids all at potentially life threatening risk. Shout if you need a hand.

I’m not sure why you’re being dick to me. I’ve just responded to your post stating what should have happened. Unless you were the actual SW who failed to do that then I don’t know what your issue with that is. No one is saying you did anything wrong.

People who have nothing to hide would have nothing to fear from a more hardline approach from SS. I'd happily petition for and support that if it meant vulnerable children were saved from abuse or worse at the hands of their parents and carers. The same goes for 'intrusive' questions from teachers, police and HCP. It's fine to be offended that they're questioning your parenting or your child's home life, but if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? We all purport to care so much about the likes of Arthur, so surely it's a small price to pay in the great scheme of things?

I’m not in practice, so no it wasn’t me, possibly I’m being a duck because there’s an assumption that SWs just don’t do their job properly and don’t know how it should be done. You’ve just explained to me a job I’ve been doing for 25 years, the equivalent of mansplaining of you please. Or maybe I’ve spent more time than I care to think about trying to improve practice in the face of a society who seem to want gold standard service on a brass budget.

In any event it’s probably time for me to step away.

Its not just social workers failing these children, they just get all the blame.

I'm not saying it is, as in this case more that one agency failed again and we were told lessons had been learnt from the last time this happened, the evidence points to the contrary. One report to Social Services could be dismissed and thought malicious but not four from different people and yet they were dismissed.

I wish I could be confident that things will change after this case, but I have no faith that they will.

@IknowwhatIneed

Congratulations, here’s your SW identification and 30 kids all at potentially life threatening risk. Shout if you need a hand.

As long as a point can be proven, who gives a monkeys about the actual deep complexities of the situation that someone with decades of direct, relevant experience can personally attest to, right? Just wipe their faces, FFS! And if they refuse, send in the police because the "deeply suspicious" threshold has been instantly met! And spend as long as it takes - what do you mean, your workload is unfathomable? Didn't you know that is what was required when you took on the job?!

I commend your patience, @IknowwhatIneed.

there’s an assumption that SWs just don’t do their job properly

We’re on thread number two full of posts explaining why SWs can’t do their jobs properly, so it’s not an assumption.

Just wipe their faces, FFS! And if they refuse, send in the police because the "deeply suspicious" threshold has been instantly met!

Why are you making things up? That’s not at all what I said.

@KurtWildesChristmasNamechange

People who have nothing to hide would have nothing to fear from a more hardline approach from SS. I'd happily petition for and support that if it meant vulnerable children were saved from abuse or worse at the hands of their parents and carers. The same goes for 'intrusive' questions from teachers, police and HCP. It's fine to be offended that they're questioning your parenting or your child's home life, but if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? We all purport to care so much about the likes of Arthur, so surely it's a small price to pay in the great scheme of things?

This!

It's fine to be offended that they're questioning your parenting or your child's home life, but if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? We all purport to care so much about the likes of Arthur, so surely it's a small price to pay in the great scheme of things?

@KurtWildesChristmasNamechange

People who have nothing to hide would have nothing to fear from a more hardline approach from SS. I'd happily petition for and support that if it meant vulnerable children were saved from abuse or worse at the hands of their parents and carers. The same goes for 'intrusive' questions from teachers, police and HCP. It's fine to be offended that they're questioning your parenting or your child's home life, but if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? We all purport to care so much about the likes of Arthur, so surely it's a small price to pay in the great scheme of things?

I think it's because they sometimes get it wrong. Human error etc. Sometimes they miss something with tragic consequences, but sometimes they see something that isn't there and ruin a child's life by placing them in care.

It's also money tbh. Have you seen the state of some areas of the UK lately? We are not exactly rolling in it.

But generally you're right. I'd like to think I'd be glad SS was investigating potential abuse. Because I only know for sure that I personally am not abusing them. SS may discover abuse at the hands of a family friend, a teacher or even my dh and I may never have known.

@PrinzessinCressida sounds like you could do with reading about the Orkney's Satanic Abuse case as well. It really isnt as simple as "if you are innocent you have nothing to fear" - sometimes professionals and agencies get it badly wrong.

This is all turning into “if you haven’t been a SW for 25 years you don’t get an opinion” which is very dangerous territory. SWs and the whole system is fallible, it’s very much not beyond reproach. We absolutely should be allowed to discuss what needs to happen when the system is failing without being sneered at for not having a clue by those who are part of that system.

I do appreciate that SW's have a difficult job and can't do right for doing wrong sometimes, there was all that nonsense years ago about them stealing babies to put them up for adoption, however, in this case Tustin had already been on their radar, Arthur's circumstances regarding his mother was known, the agencies involved knew and yet still brushed it off.

@Porcupineintherough I am aware of the Orkney case. I agree that this is a danger that needs to be watched out for when discussing the increase of social worker and police powers in potential abuse cases. But the point I believe KurtWildesChristmasNamechange was making - enabling professionals to go about their business and not being prissy about answering questions that one might feel are unwarranted, for the greater good - is not this.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

This is all turning into “if you haven’t been a SW for 25 years you don’t get an opinion” which is very dangerous territory. SWs and the whole system is fallible, it’s very much not beyond reproach. We absolutely should be allowed to discuss what needs to happen when the system is failing without being sneered at for not having a clue by those who are part of that system.

I completely agree. I’m really fed up of social workers shooting everyone down on these threads. People are allowed to have an opinion about these things.

Why did baby P’s mum get such a lenient sentence? Also the other ones too?

Have you seen the state of some areas of the UK lately?

Yes, I live on the outskirts of one of the poorest cities in the country. 4.3 million children living in overtly countrywide 2019-2020 figures. More now without a doubt. Unfortunately until the government starts tackling issues like child poverty and underfunding of essential protective services then the outlook is bleak.

[quote Porcupineintherough]@PrinzessinCressida sounds like you could do with reading about the Orkney's Satanic Abuse case as well. It really isnt as simple as "if you are innocent you have nothing to fear" - sometimes professionals and agencies get it badly wrong.[/quote]
Quite. Just as they got it wrong with Arthur, Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka... and that's just off the top of my head. So until they stop pussyfooting around with parental rights trumping children's rights, these cases will continue to happen.

And that's not just aimed at SS btw, that includes schools, HCP and police.

I have followed the case pretty closely, reading live updates, but what did the hughes grandmother mean when she said one witness wasn't bothered about arthur being killed.

The problem with social workers is that they seem to be focussing to heavily on how clean the child's house is and what the sheets on their bed is like and whether the heating is on. And if the child is nicely dressed.