Baby p the untold story

[thoughtsbecomethings]

What are people's thoughts on this program ??

Of course abuse happens in all walks of life

But I wonder what they statistics are on this, as the three families i have known where children have been removed due to abuse/neglect have all been lower income families. I wonder if it is better covered up in wealthier circles? Or if they go unnoticed more as it is stereotypically less expected

There are statistics on this, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for them.

What I do know, and what this film has shown, is that people's personal prejudices often conspire to create a picture that is far from the truth.

So if enough people say that poor people are statistically more likely to abuse their children and "back it up" with an anecdote or two, and if enough people are willing to believe that, that will be the narrative that takes hold, sadly.

It is perhaps human nature, that we want to feel superior to others and that people are getting their just desserts.

Hence Benefits Britain type programmes rather than 'how I dodged paying taxes' about a wealthy pensioner.

Joanne Warner has written about how it is culturally convenient for the media to construct a contaminating underclass in regard to child abuse.

Then if we can also 'other' and witch-hunt the largely female workforce supposed to control the contamination (social workers) and who it seems we wish to protect us from the effects of child abuse, we can distance ourselves from our role as electors and members of the community in these failings.

It surprises me how few people reject the media, certainly the "print" media (whether it's on-line, paper etc). I refuse to have newspapers in the house (other than the local ones). They are full of lies and make a mess! I only pay any attention to Newsnight and the Today Programme. Sadly this means I usually don't have a clue about the latest celebrity shite, a very small price to pay!

Maybe it wasn't a coincidence that the head of children's services and the doctor blamed for the poor diagnosis were both women.

I think the figures are 2 children a week die at the hands of their parents. This case does seem to have been a witch hunt (literally!).

Also I wasn't that impressed by some of the professionals involved. Many had serious positions of responsibility for vulnerable children. But again I think if the system was working better generally and was better resourced it might attract and retain people able to do an outstanding job with our children and families - surely that's what we as a society must support

I was shocked when I heard the guy state that the break to Baby P's back likely happened AFTER his last appointment.

That poor family, the poor dr, forever broken, because certain people wanted their ounce of blood...

nana, the figure given in the film was that a child is killed by its parents every 10 days.

And the figure that was somewhat underplayed was that since Baby P, 260 children have been killed by adults and only 26 of them were known to social services.

I know different, my heart went out the tge paediatrician and her family. I am glad she went back home away from the baying mob. I am so glad she dident take her life, those vigilantes are disgusting.

Same here (re being glad she didn't take her life) but in a way, she still lost it, didn't she.

The paediatrician's husband testimony was so heart-breaking, when he said he and his wife arrived in England and saw GOSH and said, "That place is not for the likes of us."

Its interesting reading to do an advanced search on mumsnet for Baby P or Sharon Shoesmith. I wonder how many people who contributed to historic threads have watched the programme last night and revised their original opinions

I wonder if Cameron discussed his attacks on Labour, in respect of Baby P, with Rebekah Brooks over a Chipping Norton dinner?

Coincidently, am training to be a social worker in Denmark, and the module we have atm is multi agency working. I've been reading the Lamming Report and the Baby P serious case review so was very pleased to see this program. I thought it redressed the balance. It made it very clear that there were organisational problems in every agency, but that it was the social workers that were demonised by the media. It was also clear that the cumulative effect was disasterous.

And actually, I really feel for Sharon Shoesmith and the other individuals. The only people responsible for Peter's death are the ones who actually killed him. Yes it could have and should have been prevented, but was beyond the capacity of the individuals due to poor organisation and support. There is no way I will ever work in child protection.

I've just watched it on catch up.

The whole thing really was the most appalling fuck up by all involved and watching various parties still trying to wriggle out of taking responsibility didn't sit very easily with me.

Have I got this right: his social worker made an unannounced call to the house and found Peter with bruising to his face. She took him to the hospital and doctors agreed that the mother's claim of another child causing it were unlikely and that it was more in line with an adult punching him.....yet the child was still allowed home?

Suburbanrhonda - that article is, or should be, shocking. However, I recognise the situationjit outlines from direct experience.
This situation is extremely wrong.

I remember Ed Balls sacking Sharon Shoesmith, he stood up in parliament as if he was the knight in shining armour coming to the aid of these poor abused children.

When in fact it was just showmongering to appease the DM readers. Bastard. def need to stay off these threads

I think she had to be sacked. I don't see that he had an alternative

I now think he was scared of Murdoch (and Cameron).

What did the judge say who ruled it an unfair dismissal?

I don't know, look at all the senior admin of NHS who just move sideways or even get promoted in different regions, despite horror stories from their hospitals, somehow they are not held to blame.

She hadn't been in post that long, if I'm remembering correctly, and they'd just merged Education with Children's Services, she'd come from the Education side. Imv she was too distant from the problem to be held responsible. Or if they'd sacked her others should have gone too, eg the senior police responsible.

26 children have died since then who were known to SS, but no head has been sacked (that I know of).

he commissioned the emergency report though. and that report pissed all over Haringey Children Services (on flawed information admittedly) But he couldn't commission a report, present its findings and then do nothing.

But he couldn't commission a report, present its findings and then do nothing.

Probably true, but it's often the case that if you stall for a while on these things the headlines move on to something else and things can be quietly resolved rather than ending up with the treatment meted out to those involved in this case.

Rather than act so quickly a careful examination of the facts might have produced a fairer outcome.