find oneself wondering about the horrendous pain, loneliness, physical and mental suffering and abandonment that child must have suffered before he died.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16514512
AIBU to wonder how the man in the street "distances" themselves from this type of news item?
I know there are reasons why the two should not be linked but remind me why people should be entitled to state benefit payments without any obligation to co operate in any way (eg let social workers into their flat, visit the GP regularly with their child, send their child to school) with authorities?
For some people can payments of benefits not be subject to an absolute condition that various authorities have acknowledged in a formal process (eg child is confirmed in writing as up to date with immunisations in order for you to get your benefits payments). It seems this woman wanted the child related benefit payments to continue for her drug / alcohol habit and she got them without too much verification by authorities for 8 whole months.
Or is this the slippery slope to big brother and everyone should be allowed to receive benefits with no intervention or too much questioning in terms of child protection? I guess I am suggesting something stronger than "intervention and questioning" - I am saying "in order to receive your benefits the GP has to sign off on your child's wellbeing not less than every 4 weeks etc" (for problem cases only, not every child in the UK)
Maybe I am just getting emotional in response to this news item. It is not that the baby was left dead in a cot for 8 months - it is the level of neglect which must have been involved in his death (although no one will ever know for sure how he died due to the lapse of time brought about by the mothers deceit)
I really think in this day and age it is proven again and again that people don't have the safety net often required for their childrens safety whether in terms of extended family (increasingly fragmented and weak) nor in terms of state/government structures (social workers etc) So making the one thing they want / need (state funding in terms of benefits) expressly linked to measurable behaviours (and I am not being clever her, I am just thinking "you must feed your child" "you must not abandon your child or leave them alone" "you must take your child to the GP when they are ill" " you must allow social workers into your home and co operate with them") - if you want your money you must do these basic things.