.....re the Baby P case and others like...

[JimJammum]

I realise that, as the death penalty is no longer in effect, and assuming someone doesn't get hold of those scums and d the job we all want done....Is is unreasonable to expect that anyone male or female found guilty of child abuse should be sterilised??? At least then they wouldn't be able to have any more kids themselves to neglect, seeing as SS are unable to protect them.

While I'm ranting on the subject, I give money every month to NSPCC and have been called today by fundraisers for Save the Children....where are these charities and their support in cases such as this?? Can't SS use them and their funds/workers/whatever to assist them if necessary? Am I being too simplistic?

yeah, I'd agree with redhanded, certainly

but how often does that happen in cases of child abuse? very rarely ime

as for confession, unfortunately some confessions have been thrown out in the past, after it has been discovered either that the accused person was mentally instable or that the confession was obtained through police intimidation

yes, it would be nice if every policeman who interviewed every suspect always stayed perfectly professional and never put pressure on someone to confess just to get some rest- but it's never going to happen

there is a Catch 22 in that suspects/prisoners often can only get a milder sentence/get restored to their families/get their children back if they show remorse

now, obviously you can only show remorse by confessing to what you are being accused of

if you keep saying, but I didn't do it, then you have proved that you are not being remorseful

there have been well documented cases of parents confessing to crimes they have not committed because they think it's their only chance to get back to their families (police and social workers do sometimes hold this out as an inducement)

now imagine that you suspected that there was something terribly wrong with your child and that noone else had spotted it; in other words, if you weren't there to keep an eye, noone would call an ambulance or get a doctor next time the child started showing symptoms; they would be put in the care of a foster parent who had been told that there was nothing wrong with the child

(this has happened)

would you not be tempted to confess to something you hadn't done, if you thought it might be your only chance to help your child?

I like to think that I would not risk it, because I think it would be too risky, but I can see why some people have

and even for me, you have to understand that when were suspected of sexual abuse, we did not know what dd's medical condition was, or if it was something serious, maybe even fatal

(in the event, it turned out to be something painful but not dangerous)

all we knew was, that as long as the doctors thought it was abuse, they wouldn't be doing any more tests on her and we'd have no chance to take her anywhere else for a second opinion

so no chance of getting her help if the condition was serious

(one child died of a brain tumour under these circumstances)

fortunately, our situation was resolved quickly- but if it hadn't been there are few things I would not have been prepared to say or do if I thought they could help dd

Who knows what the answer is, but it is clear the system does not work at present. Yes abusers are not always the parent, but are usually introduced by the parent, boyfriends etc. Babies and children are left in the care of unsuitable parents, mothers who can not or for some reason will not put their childrens needs before their own, or will not leave a abusive partner and fail to protect their children. These children are left to suffer years of neglect and abuse until either they grow up and leave or they are removed from their care. If a parent has had a child removed whether they cant look after it or protect the child, then i do think measures should be put in place to prevent them having more children, whether that is contraceptive methods, or social services being involved from day one. As a social worker, you find the children once the children are removed, the mother gets pregnant again, and until evidence is to the contrary then it is assumed the child is safe in her care, generally this is not the case, and another child will have to suffer until evidence builds up. There are too many 'grey' areas in social work at the moment, and there needs to be some black and white - a basic standard of making sure children are clean, fed and safe. I think my work colours my view of this, as i generally see more abuse than the general public, but my opinion is firm, some parents should definately be stopped from having children. If parents have had children removed from theircare because of neglect, harm, sexual abuse, failure to protect etc, then they have no business having any more. If i was not a social worker i would probably have a different view, maybe be less cynical

cory no I don't agree that you would confess to something you hadn't done just to show that your being remorsefull. Surely you've still got the down side of being prosecited for something you haven't done?

I agree though that it is just catch 22, we can all argue with each other and pick bits out of what we are all saying. there is no right or wrong answer becuase everything throws up too many other questions and arguments.

I agree with mrswill that clearly the system is not working though.

mrswill I would love to work with children and families and try to help but I fear I would be so pissed off by all the red tape you have to go through. You must have so many do's and dont's, it must be very frustrating.

cory thats so bad that they wouldn't do any further tests on you child once abuse had been suspected, thats crazy, they should of been doing everything to rule it out shouldn't they! Glad your LO is okay now

it is a fact that people who get questioned persistently sometimes end up confessing to all sorts of things because they are exhausted and no longer know what they are saying

think of the Orkney case where children made up stories of sexual abuse because a professional stood over them and hinted that the questioning wouldn't stop until they had told her what she wanted to hear (and no, she wasn't breaking the law; as far as I can make out, she is still practising)

I'll tell you after I had been through a fairly minor session of questioning, I felt guilty

even though I knew I hadn't done anything

given a few more weeks of unrelenting questioning heaven knows what I would have said; you get so stressed that it's easy to agree to something without meaning to

dd after 4 years still feels inside that somehow it is her fault and she must have made it all up because all these adults in authority was telling her that it was all in her mind

this despite a full diagnosis and a medical file as thick as the width of my hand

she is emotionally damaged

it does happen to people who get accused and where the evidence seems to be against them

thanks for sympathy, Gillyan

I do have a very clear memory of a junior doctor trying to persuade the consultants to do more tests

but he had made his mind up

apparently it is in the medical recommendations that you should limit tests on children in suspected Munchausen by proxy cases, because otherwise you're encouraging the perpetrator

Can I just make it quite clear here that I have no sympathy for actual perpetrators or child abuse.

I am happy with strictly enforced punishment.

I just don't want them to be irreversible.

Not least for the sake of the children. If their parents hadn't done anything, then a harsh and irreversible punishment is going to add to their suffering too.

Also, I don't think confession on its own is necessarily very reliable evidence.

Haven't read the thread but agree that forced sterilisation is a total non starter, for same reasons as death penalty. Anyway, Baby P's parents will be on permanent protection register.

One point:

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard people in general (and more so on here) have regarding the SS.

One one hand, we expect the SS to be totally on the ball, to deal effectively with every case no matter how trivial the initial abuse indicators are etc etc, but...

When it's got anything to do with us, or anybody we know, we go totally ballistic with rage at the idea that any authority might question our children's welfare.

I can think of quite a few threads in which people have felt that SS have contacted them for invalid reasons, and without exception the response is, those bastards, how DARE they, you are a fantastic mum, tell them to fuck off, etc etc etc.

So how do we actually feel about SS? We support them or we don't, surely. The standard response to anybody who so much as looks at us slightly quizzically as we shout at our kids in the supermarket is back the fuck off, how dare you question me etc, so how can we ever foster an environment where gvt agencies are welcome in people's homes?

munchausen is that where the parents/careres are making their child ill to get attention? Suppose I can see why they would limit tests if thats what they suspected but it's still crap for you.

I can see how a kid could be put under pressure yes.

I was crossed examined when I had to crown court to give evidence about the rape. I t was one of the worst things I've ever had to sit though. The lawyer kept saying the most ridiculous things trying to trip me up and accused me of lying and making the whole thing up or agreeing to it etc.

The person who attacked me had started talking to me on the back seat of the bus. I tried to ignore him without being rude. I felt like such an idiot as I didn't want to offend him if he wasn't right in the head IYKWIM. Any way he followed me off the bus and thats when i was attacked.

The lawyer was saying it couldn't be true as why would he do it in broad daylight? and why would he risk talking to me on a bus, in broad daylight...god it was pathetic, this lawyer obviously thinks we need it to be dark for a rape to take place.

Anyway, it was horrible and I almost tripped myself up a few times just by speaking the truth, they try and twist everything you say.

Si yes I can imagine what the pressure is like but I just had to stick to the facts, it was all I could do.

morriszapp It's a hard one, I support SS and understand how hard their job must be when they have all the grey areas they do, I honestly think if I ever had to have them round that I would calmly accept that they were doing their job and my innonence would prevail. But then for cases like cory that happened to her and she had done nothing but they really thought she had so I could imagine if that happened to me I'd get the 'fuck off' attitude after a while.

On the whole I support SS and I think like any other profession there are times when your actions will be called for review as with the Baby P case. If they have done their job wrong then they will be investigated etc.

It must be such a hard job though, very frustrating.

What angers me is that people automatically say that its the ss system or the health system thats wrong is these cases. Its not the social workers fault - its the perpetrators fault. In terms of social workers responsibilty for identifying abuse cases - what about the responsibility of the wider family/friends/neighbours? We all complain about ss not doing anything to protect these children - but when was the last time we personally did anything to protect a vulnerable child?

We had a case recently where the child died, his Mum's partner was found guilty of (I think) culpable homicide. Mums partner had hit child so hard had caused internal bleeding, Mum was out working as a prostitute at the time to earn money to buy drugs. She didn't take son to hospital as she thought he just had a bug. What scared me so much about the case was that after the Mum was released she talked about how she was a good mum. She honestly thought she was a good mum. I guess thats because in the world she lived in she was a typical mum, bringing her kid up the same way all the other kids are being brought up. sad

Sounds ghastly, Gillyan. You and I were clearly able to keep our cool and stick to the facts. But then maybe not everybody is as strong. I could understand how people might crumble, having seen my own dd crumble. Particularly if questioning goes on for weeks, as it didn't in either my case or yours. And if you are locked up in jail.

Actually, what they suspected us of was not so much Munchausen (if I understood them correctly) but that dd's joint pains were somehow the result of trauma caused by sexual abuse. And to be fair to them, they weren't directly accusing me, more suspecting that someone around dd was guilty. But the questioning was stressful in the extreme.

Other parents with children with this condition have been accused of child battering because some variants of the condition leave huge bruises, or makes the skin tear really easily, or leaves scars like cigarette burns or causes falls that then lead to perfectly unexplainable injuries. (dd got concussion from losing her balance and falling when walking sedately along the hall; she can also dislocate her joints merely by stepping off the pavement; a very light pull on her hand could potentially cause dislocation- wouldn't exactly look good when you tried to explain in A&E)

Her condition is known, but it wasn't known to me, and the consultant clearly didn't know of it or had forgotten if he ever had heard of it. So I can easily imagine a situation where that could have got to court and noone else would have thought of it either.

lal123 I couldn't agree more, thats exactly what I said (to my DP)...about it being the parents fault ultimately not the social workers. There is only so much the Social workers can do.

It's these type of people I am on about, scum bags who think it's ok to be a prostite etc.

God your poor DD. Not that it must make you feel any better but what a complicated case!

I did crumble, but after I was let out of the witness box, I was 17 by the time it went to court, on valentines day of all day's! They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and it's so true. I am VERY forceful now with men. I was in a bar a few yrs later and a guy was pressed right up against me and kept asking to buy me a drink and I shouted in his face to leave me alone and then got a bar man and told him. there is a time I would of just put up with that as typical pissed up men behavior. I also have hit 2 men! I worked in a bar years ago and it was very busy one night and I was literally crushed between a load of people trying to collect glasses. A man behind me started grabbing my bum and I turned round and he was looking the other way pretending not to do it. I shouted at him to stop it and he carried on so I punched him in the face. And the last time was only about a year ago, same kind of thing but it happened to my friend and I punched him in the face. I swear I am not a violent person but it angers me to see big men intimidating women.

I had worked in bars as a second job for over 10 yrs untill the last few years and can deal with the normal pissed up men thing but the ones I have just mentioned were being very out of order.

I suppose you're the same with your strong opinions from what happened to you. Thankfully you came out of it all ok but you have the experience now and if would know how to deal with it if it happened again or to someone else.

The law is scary, to find the man that attacked me guilty, the jury had to believe that he had purposefully set oput that day to commit the crime etc and loads of other points....how can you prove that? and why does it matter if he planned it or not? I think that is why I err more towards absolute belief in a gulty verdict because there are SO many counts that have to be there for the gulity verdict.

Gillyan I do understand where you are coming from WRT gangs and teenage pregnancies, but again these are not just modern phenomena. There have always been feckless and dangerous parents. The infanticide rates for illegitimate children were huge in the past and so were concealed pregnancies ending in infanticide

I would even go so far as to say that there is probably less child abuse than in the past, because of greater awareness, more supervision of parenting generally, and less ignorance and squalor. That's not to say that there isn't a LOT of abuse going on, because clearly there is.

Seconded, it is utterly pointless to charge the SS with ensuring that nobody abuses or kills their kids. It's an impossible task, and just makes it easier to pour hate and blame on gvt agencies rather then on the actual perpetrators, who we don't feel we have any control over.

Look at the tabloids - falling over themselves to support Karen Matthews when her child 'went missing', then freaking out becuase Baby P's parents managed to pull the wool over the SS's eyes.

Who exactly is qualified to know for fact when somebody is lying?

I think a huge part of the problem with most aspects of child protection is staffing difficulties. Even 'nice' local authorities have problems recruiting and retaining staff because a) the workload is enormous, b) managers do not always have front line experience of social work so can't provide adequate support c) violence/ threats from those trying to be helped d)systems and case conferences which share responsibility i.e. diminish individual responsibility.

That appears to apply to local authority child protection teams, solicitors etc everyone involved.

I think there are some things that would help:

1. targeted intervention from very early days, including constant supervision if felt necessary

2. Resisting the belief that it is wrong to target particular groups. Although horrific violence can happen to children in any situation, it is more likely in some circumstances than others.

3)Take reports to SS seriously and follow them up properly and in detail.

Gillyan I feel for you, and I agree that our courts are not ideal for convicting the guilty. Our justice system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, which unfortunately for victims of crime means that the law's first duty is to protect people from false conviction, not to find criminals guilty.

I'm reading the Rumpole stories by John Mortimer at the moment (great, light reading, highly recommended!) and of course Mortimer was a barrister so knew what he was talking about. Defence lawyers/ barristers exist for one purpose only: to get their client aquitted using whatever means necessary. This is no secret and they're happy to admit it. The truth, and punishing the guilty, are secondary or even irrelevant concerns. The job is to get your guy off, at whatever cost to the prosecution.

You're not seen as the victim, you're the enemy who must be defeated in court.

The Rumpole stories are very jolly, light reads, but they are dated and I'm afraid one of them features Rumpole gleefully getting an aquittal for a rapist by proving in court that the victim was a prostitute. I'd be surprised if anything has really changed much since then, regardless of apparent 'progress' in attitudes.

A young girl here in Scotland actually killed herself following her cross examination in court. She had been raped in a park, but the defence said she 'wanted sex' and this could be proved by the fact that she had gone out wearing g-string underwear. They made her hold these up in court. The accused was found guilty but the girl couldn't cope with what she had been through and ended her life. This was only a few years ago.

I don't know what the answer is - for as long as we have an adversarial court system, we will have highly trained legal professionals whose job is to secure an aquittal at any cost.

I think it should be possible to have an adverserial system where a judge pulls defence barristers up on obvious misogyny. Surely even the most committed defence barrister can't get away with trying to destroy a witness' credibility through racist assumptions? So it should be possible to make it clear that misogynist assumptions are also unacceptable.

the job of defence is to defend the accused to the best of their ability - not to "secure an acquittal at any cost" Rumpole stories are just that - stories.

Also - if a barrister knows that their client is guilty they are not allowed to defend them as innocent

If the client says 'I did it' then the barrister must not defend them as not guilty.

But the barrister can encourage the client to go for a not guilty plea if they think there's a chance of securing it.

John Mortimer has written of this at length outwith his fictional stories, as have other people who work in the law. I have no legal training so have only laymans knowlege, but surely just by watching the news you can see that defence lawyers exist to secure aquittals.

I watched the documentary 'Barristers' and it was the same. A young female barrister looking down in the mouth becuase her client had admitted under questioning in court that yes, he had battered his child. She was like 'Oh well, the evidence was against him but I did my best. Never mind, I might do better next time' as in, next time I might get the guy off.

Even my DP was like 'what the fuck - is her job to get child batterers set free? How does she sleep at night etc etc'.

the reason she sleeps at night, Morris, is that she knows she is one necessary half to get a balanced system

the prosecution barrister on the other hand has the job of examining the facts in the worst possible light: if the assumption is the accused is guilty, how do these facts fit into that

the defence barrister does the same thing: if we assume the accused is innocent, how can explain the evidence

between the two of them, they present two possible interpretations: it is then up to the jury to decide which is the most plausible

you might as well ask, how can prosecutors sleep at night? they must know that some of the people they accuse may well be innocent

but between the two of them, hopefully the truth will emerge

though any punishment system imo should take account of the fact that in a small minority of cases the truth will emerge not at the trial but at some later date

I didn't see the programme you referred to re barristers - but if I was a barrister and didn't know my client was guilty and they then admitted they were, I'd be pretty down in the mouth too.

Like Cory sys -she sleeps at night because she knows she is doing her job to the best of her ability. If you are ever accused of something you did not do then I am sure you will want the best barrister you can get (or are only innocent people allowed a good defence )

and of course the reason that both the prosecutor and the defence have to push their side to the best of their ability is that it is not their job to decide on the verdict: that is for the jury

a defence barrister who deliberately did her job badly because she thought the accused guilty would in effect be lying to the jury: they are told that this is the most positive interpretation that can be put on the case, so they have a right to get the most positive interpretation possible

Sure, but neither side is striving for the truth. They are both striving for the best outcome for their own client.

That's why so often both sides can call expert witnesses who will back up their own side of a scenario.

In other countries, some trials are not done using the adversarial system. I admit it's not something I have in depth knowlege of, but I think it's something we should be more open to here.

In this country, the best legal team wins. I'd rather see the truth win, not a 'case'. In exactly the same way that I believe that politics is not best served by overgrown schoolboys having a bunfight in parliament, I believe that justice is not best served by two opposing sides who will do anything to discredit each other's evidence.