Another child dead in London.

Disturbing to hear that another child is dead in London of multiple injuries so soon after the baby P case. Time will tell if this case will be similar to that of baby p or if there will be another catalogue of failures this time from social services? While state agencies came in for considerable anger from the general public in the baby P case, what of the mother and the maternal instinct in these type of crimes?

Update The child isn’t known to social services nor was he on the at risk register.

  • cynic

    Sorry Kathleen, let’s see the detail in this case but the sad truth is that, with 60 million people in the UK, every so often some of them will murder their children no matter what the authorities do.

    Even where there is a history of family problems the only way to eliminate this risk would be to immediately remove every child at potential risk from their families and place them in state run homes….where arguably and collectively they would be at risk from other children and staff.

    Nothing is risk free.

    From my perspective part of the problem now is that there is relatively little deterrent for parent who do abuse their children. Even if they kill a child they may be out of prison in 8 years.

  • Kathleen

    cynic, are you saying that for children at risk, the choice is between abuse in a dysfunctional family and abuse from other children and staff in state run homes? Thats some choice isn’t it?

    I often wonder does it have something to do with a woman wanting to hold on to a man at any price?

  • cynic

    No….my point is that for the whole population of children at ‘potential’ risk you can only remove the risk of parental murder by imposing a lower risk of harm that affects the whole population…. and at huge cost.

    “That’s some choice isn’t it?”

    Yes it is but we live in a real world where that’s the sort of choice we have to make. In fact its even worse because how do you define the boundaries around who is taken into care?

    Do you do what the Australians did with the lost generation …. remove them from Aboriginal families because they think they are at too high a risk there and would be better brought up ‘respectably’ in state institutions? That was done essentially on racial grounds but would social grounds be any better? Your mother / father has a drink problem / drug problem / depression / was themselves a victim of child abuse so our statistics show that this makes you at higher risk of being abused yourself so we will take you into care.

    Of course the ‘solution’ is even wore than the problem. The point is though that, while we can have the best possible controls and operate them wisely and effectively, we will not stop all child murder… indeed we may not stop that many child murders at all.

  • wild turkey

    ‘I often wonder does it have something to do with a woman wanting to hold on to a man at any price? ‘

    Huh? Kathleen, seeing as you have ‘often wonder(ed)’ and no doubt pondered this issue, perhaps you could expand and explain just what your comment means.
    are you suggesting it boils down to the simpliste equation that:-

    woman = victim = manipulated but blameless innocent = legitmate carer of first resort whereas,
    man = violent = perpetrator = manipulator of woman and abuser of children to satiate inate violent impulses.

    Perhaps child abuse and murder could be reduced, if not eliminated, if the role of men is confined to that of occassional sperm donors and regular financial contributors via the CSA? Whaddya think?

    also, Kathleen assuming you deal in facts rather than received wisdom and opinion, citations from your evidence base on the abuse of children in care by other children and staff would be useful in weighing up the choices.

    just curious. really.
    thank you

  • Kathleen

    WT my comment means what it says. No I’m not suggesting it is as simplistic as you point out.

    Perhaps child abuse and murder could be reduced, if not eliminated, if the role of men is confined to that of occassional sperm donors and regular financial contributors via the CSA? Whaddya think?

    No I don’t think that, whaddya you think?

    also, Kathleen assuming you deal in facts rather than received wisdom and opinion, citations from your evidence base on the abuse of children in care by other children and staff would be useful in weighing up the choices.

    WT I merely commented on abuse from other children and staff in reply to cynic…..

    just curious. really.

    I’m a little curious as to what you think too wild turkey.

  • Kathleen

    WT re expanding on the comment perhaps you could read this:

    The conditions for the perpetuation of evil were now complete. She was a young woman who would not want to remain alone, without a man, for very long; but with three children already, she would attract precisely the kind of man, like the father of her first child—of whom there are now many—looking for vulnerable, exploitable women. More than likely, at least one of them (for there would undoubtedly be a succession of them) would abuse her children sexually, physically, or both.

    She was, of course, a victim of her mother’s behavior at a time when she had little control over her destiny. Her mother had thought that her own sexual liaison was more important than the welfare of her child, a common way of thinking in today’s welfare Britain. That same day, for example, I was consulted by a young woman whose mother’s consort had raped her many times between the ages of eight and 15, with her mother’s full knowledge. Her mother had allowed this solely so that her relationship with her consort might continue. It could happen that my patient will one day do the same thing.

  • wild turkey

    kathleen

    many thanks for the link.

    interesting ( the depression< ->unhappiness dichotamy is probably a large contributor to the growth of the use of anti-depressants, valium, etc etc) and and it merits a considered and thoughtful read.

    right now I think I better sit down for a healthy dinner with my 8 and 9 year olds before ShrekII. Simple things like this bring us closer together as a family, functional or otherwise.

    again thanks
    WT

  • JJ

    Sncial workers should be made more accountable

  • All we know about this, so far, is a bland newsfeed, repeating an official police statement.

    That may be amplified in due course.

    Meanwhile, can it also be put on record that the local authority for Sidcup is Bexley? Bexley, unlike Haringey, is Tory-controlled: 43 Tories and 9 Labour.

    Bexley’s headline claim is to deliver below-inflation council tax. As a result the Council has already published a list of cuts: £2.5M of which comes from the Children’s Services and Education budget by 2010/11. This is not all dross: front-line services, including the Emergency Duty Team suffer significant budget and staffing cuts. It is also intended to save by using “external support”.

    One further point: when I taxed the vocal Lynne Featherstone on why she, like others “in the know”, had been silent about Baby P until manure met ventilator (that is, after the court verdict and The Sun had gone ape), I was told:

    the law tightly restricts what you can say in public about a case whilst legal proceedings are ongoing. That’s why my public comments on Baby P’s death were after the verdict.

    True enough: but such double-think does not apply to the thrusts against Haringey Councillors and Officers. On these, she and others (including Cameron) subsequently capitalised with misrepresentation and witch-hunts about actions before the tragedy and in the interim of the court process.

    Whatever the real horror behind this story, I sincerely hope that party political considerations do not intrude, nor lead to partisan shrieks of affronted horror a year or eighteen months in the future — after a several sub-rosa reviews and a reporting-restricted court process.

  • latcheeco

    Kathleen,
    Is someone going to make a ridiculous post about how this says something of who the English are, the way they would if it happened across the pond?

  • Dave

    “I often wonder does it have something to do with a woman wanting to hold on to a man at any price?”

    Given that most of the victims of parental abuse are males and that most of the abusers are females, I doubt it. If anything, it’s more likely to “have something to do with a man wanting to hold on to a woman at any price.”

    US government statistics for the gender of abusers (more reliable than politically-doctored UK government statistics) show that 58% of abusers were women and only 42% were men.

    [i]Nearly 80 percent (79.9%) of perpetrators were parents of the victim;
    Approximately 60 percent (60.4%) of perpetrators were found to have neglected children; and
    Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42 percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men. [/i]

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter5.htm

  • Rory Carr

    It should be borne in mind that at the time of writing the headline to this thread, “Another child murdered in London” had rather jumped the gun much in the manner that Malcolm so deplores. What we know is that police have begun a murder inquiry after a child who died showed evidence of having been subject to violence. We also know that an unnamed couple have been questioned and released on police bail. And so it remains as I write now almost eight hours later.

    On the general point of child deaths as a result of parental abuse and how they might occur and how we might act to prevent them I must admit that, despite working for a national charity in the field of child protection for many years, I am completely agnostic.

    On my very first case while in training, a 12 year old girl rang from the North of England detailing a horrific account of her latest ‘stepfather’ tying her to a chair with electrical cable prior to assaulting her. When she complained to her mother and showed her the cable marks on her wrists the mother called her a little liar and claimed that she was showing signs of ringworm. I was able to calm the child and was able to gain enough of her trust that allowed her to find the courage to resolve to tell her grandmother and a teacher, both of whom she trusted. I turned to my supervisor afterwards and, feeling quite pleased and thinking I had done well, remarked that if she told her teacher then the teacher was obliged by law to report the abuse and steps would immediately be taken to protect her. He, a very experienced, sage and compassionate psychologist sighed and said, “Yes, God help her. Now her problems really begin.”

    So what do we do? Well, we do what we can. Sometimes it helps, often it doesn’t and then some of us at least, like Wild Turkey, we draw our own closer to us and be grateful and find comfort from the world in that.

    Some chose to find their emotional safety in outcries of horror and condemnation as if compelled to demonstrate to the world that they are not like that, they would never abuse their children, that they are good parents. They make me uncomfortable and I ask myself, “Where’s the need?”.

    But it is upon the emotions of such as these that the mass media and the unscrupulous politicians trade as each dead or abused child becomes merely another opportunity for them to practice their black arts of human deception.

    Sane and sensible commentary upon such cases such as that from Cynic and Malcolm Redfellow above does not lend itself easily to the stirring up of hysteria and for that reason often goes unheard, which is a great pity.

  • Kathleen

    If anything, it’s more likely to “have something to do with a man wanting to hold on to a woman at any price.

    Dave good catch, but I’m not convinced its the opposite way about from your link. For example these stats from fathers for life back up what you say

    31.5% Female Parent Only
    10.7% Male Parent Only *
    21.3% Both Parents *
    16.3% Female Parent and Other
    1.1% Male Parent and Other *
    4.5% Family Relative
    6.1% Substitute Care Provider(s)
    5.7% Other
    2.7% Unknown

    * “Male parent” in that context most likely is just about anything but a natural father.
    That means that, acting alone or with others, female parents were responsible in 69.1 percent, and male parents in 33.1 percent of cases of fatal child maltreatment.

    http://fathersforlife.org/articles/report/resptojw.htm

    but its still the woman who has the serial partners, floating from man to man because she has been deserted in the first place as pointed out in my link above

    and here:

    In a land of serial stepfatherhood such as ours, we must expect dramatic cases of the most revolting cruelty to emerge more frequently than the absolute minimum number of cases that the wickedness of man dictates and probably, alas, makes unavoidable. No quantity of recommendations, social workers or even best-practice procedures will make up for this.

    from the same author, but still his argument cannot be over turned on the basis of these stats alone. The statistics do not give the reasons of the woman for the abuse nor the social milieu in which she lives. And that is where I think his argument is tops but not infalible.

  • Dewi

    Rory and Malcolm u r both right and on my side of the fence – but we must stop kids getting killed. The relevant social workers are just not paid enough for this responsibility. Who on earth would want to do this job for £18k – much rather be a banker….

  • Dave

    Kathleen, out of a total of 887,130 cases of child abuse by parents in the federal states in 2006, 514,016 of them were committed by women while 373,114 of them were committed by men.

    That is a large majority of women child abusers (58%) compared to 42% of abusers who are men. In other words, women abuse almost 50% more children than are abused by men. This exposes the feminist myth that women are better parents than men and that, ergo, the courts should favour the women in custody cases.

    You can see the statistical breakdown in the link below:

    Age and Sex of Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment, 2006

  • Kathleen

    Dave I agree with you about the women, its this where I disagree with you,

    If anything, it’s more likely to “have something to do with a man wanting to hold on to a woman at any price.

    not on the gender of the abuser…

  • Dave

    Kathleen, the woman who enters a violent relationship with a man without considering whether a violent man is a proper person to have access to her children is by de fault not a proper person to have custody of her children. Her stupidity does not absolve her of responsibility for the consequences of that stupidity. The same goes, of course, for the man who allows a violent woman to remain in the vicinity of his children. Nobody is a victim of these dysfunctional relationships other than the childern.

  • Kathleen

    “Another child murdered in London” had rather jumped the gun much in the manner that Malcolm so deplores.

    Rory the child was murdered in London, he died of multiple injuries and the case is being investigated by the child abuse team, his mother and a male have been arrested and released on police bail to appear at a london police station later on in the year. How does ‘another child murdered in london’ jump the gun? Would you like me to ammend the heading? If so to what?

    I’m not saying this is going to be the same as the baby p case, infact I believe I heard on one bulletin that this child was not known to social services…..

    If theres anything you’d like me to ammend…

  • Kathleen

    Dave I so agree with that statement,in fact the author I linked to has that as his central argument in many of his articles.

  • Rory Carr

    Kathleen,

    In this case ‘murder inquiry’ means that the police are having an inquiry to determine whether or not a murder has taken place. That has yet to be determined and no charges have been proffered against any individuals as yet. In which case the headline might more accurately have read: “Police launch murder inquiry into death of London child”, which is really all that this news bulletin is able to confirm.

    As to the statistics which indicate that in the majority of cases of child death caused by parents (whether natural or in locus) the female parent is responsible, this is hardly surprising given that where a female parent is present it is she upon whom the child will rely almost solely for any care and attention whatsoever. Rather than indicating, in the case of child death, that the female is the more deadly of the species, the high ratio of deaths caused by male adults who are likely to have very little input into caring for the child if any would indicate to me that, once again, when it comes to inflicting violence on the weak and vulnerable you just can’t beat us guys. We are the undisputed champs in that game.

  • Kathleen

    There you are Rory, amended. Please always point out if you feel something needs amended, I’m always grateful for input and thankyou kindly.

    Although it does say on BBC news that the childs death is being treated as murder..

    It is being treated as murder.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7806951.stm

  • Baz está fresco em Vermont

    Crime is access to victims, inc. by proxy. With a sink estate, in England, I could see females being around kids more.

    Most crimes relating to children in the UK are by males, very few female culprits statistically, and it is the same in the US.

    One has to look at these things ‘in the round’ and it has to relate to *all* victimization, sexual or physical etc. Because

    ‘Her stupidity does not absolve her of responsibility for the consequences of that stupidity.’

    Do you know any education ministers within 50 miles of Belfast refusing to ban sex offenders from working in schools?

    Stupid is as what stupid does or doesn’t do.

    In Kathleen’s Frivolity of Evil, the doctor asking to vet males with etc.

    If the state is going to be the parent, then the same rules have to apply.

  • LURIG

    The job of social workers is a bit like working on the front line of a dole office. It is thankless, stressful, impossible and caught up in so much red tape and regulation that would make your head spin. It’s like trying to catch water in your fingers. It doesn’t matter what you do or how hard you work you will always get these cases that escape the complicated system so in reality those know alls pointing fingers really know f**k all. It is the easist thing in the world to stand on a soapbox and blame others. Even Einstein couldn’t solve the social work and benefit systems that Britain has. HOWEVER like all these public servive organisations there are too many middle & senior managers having meetings about meetings about meetings while those at the cutting edge struggle along with no leadership, direction or strategy.
    Remember when the well known businessman Gerry Robinson went in to the NHS for a few months. He basically found that most of the problems were caused by petty, jealous, bitter in fighting amongst middle and senior NHS managers AND ridiculous anarchic rules and working practises by old school boy network consultants. He went and asked the staff on the front line how would they improve things, they told him, he implemented some of them and the results were amazing. Senior managers in the public sector are an arrogant law unto themselves and live in a bubble of their own self importance. They waste millions annually hiring consultants, advisors, PR men to do jobs they are getting paid to do themselves.
    Here’s an example. For the last decade the Government auditor has pointed out the wasted millions through error and fraud within the NI Social Security Agency. The same mistakes are being made EVERY year and staff on the frontline have pointed out to managers where the actual problems lie. They have not listened but still get their big annual bonuses and NOT one of them has been made accountable for the imcompetence that has been going on for years. They know they are unsackable. You couldn’t make it up. GET RID OF THE USELESS, INCOMPETENT, RUDDERLESS MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES IN OUR PUBLIC SERVICES, THIS IS WHERE THE REAL PROBLEMS LIE. LISTEN TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IT DAY IN DAY OUT AND YOU WILL SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS.

  • Baz está fresco em Vermont

    “also, Kathleen assuming you deal in facts rather than received wisdom and opinion, citations from your evidence base on the abuse of children in care by other children and staff would be useful in weighing up the choices.”

    That’s unfair, we all know the Brits don’t keep statistics, so it is a bit silly asking for something, that one hs to accept, simply isn’t there. The question we need, is perhaps, why is it so.

    The Anthony Daniels that Kathleen linked, I think that is an important view and definitely something, the FBI, RCMP, AFP, Interpol would recognize, in post-Blair Britain.

    I was discussing Max Hardcore’s move to the EU, yesterday, with democrats, the usual kind of thing, trying to get horses to urinate together, the stuff I do

    and one of them recounted what the FBI had stated to them, about Britain, that what Gordon Brown, is being asked to concede ( and accept blame for), is the largest child sexual abuse scandal in Western or Northern Europe since WWII

    I think Dalrymple’s ‘frivolity of evil’ managed to take that in,

    The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves—another aspect of the frivolity of evil.

    The FBI view being that ‘it’ was avoidable.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Sncial workers should be made more accountable

    This bollocks needs to stop. My neighbour is a social worker. Half of them are off work with stress, and the staff turnover rate is extremely high. They are subjected to incredible pressure to complete work quickly in time for court matters, etc, and they have no choice but to work unpaid overtime in order to complete their tasks.

    There needs to be a serious investigation into this. An organization with high turnover rates and stress is broken and cannot operate effectively. LURIG is absolutely right. The problem is not the frontline social workers themselves.

  • LURIG

    In the last year the NI Civil Service has had dozens of promotion boards, the vast majority to middle & senior management. It is an absolute scandal that low paid clerks and junior managers who actually do the work are left stressed out and understaffed by this overmanagement culture. I heard a story this week that ONE clerk was left to man the front line of a Belfast dole office over the Christmas period while managers hid in their offices upstairs. The clerk had to deal with ALL the hassle, abuse and threats from the public with no help from those above AND people ask why these clerks go off sick? It isn’t rocket science to know that the high rates of sickness in the NI Civil Service are caused by low grade badly paid staff in places like dole offices going sick. Many employees have gone years without putting sick lines in but their health has deteriorated, suffered and eventually given in because of their working conditions. These Civil Service managers have caused this and are accountable to no one, it is a shocking disgrace. The incompetence at the middle and top of NI Civil Service needs investigation, urgent reform and some form of accountability. Are there any honest, responsible journalists out there who are prepared to look behind the ‘Civil Service Sickness’ headlines and investigate why they are high? You could pinpoint it to a few departments and offices and the constant abuse and threats from the public & bullying and mismanagement from managers that the few front line staff left have to endure. An employee going off for 3 or 6 months because of their working conditions is obviously going to send average sick rates high.

  • Baz está fresco em Vermont

    Social workers, are loyal to what?

    They’re not in the scan for a solution, out of hundreds, I can reckon on two or three, being the real deal.

    They’re like cops, factor in the politics, and the solution is not going to happen.

    Child protection is a *lie*, it doesn’t exist and the lie only moves forward, because of group-think, & blame-free.

    What has the NSPCC ( for eg) ever done for kids? What did they do with the 460 million dollars they raised?

    The UK has a system where the *less* money that is expended, the *better* things get.

    It has to be bad at an underlying level to get to that point,

    Whatever benchtest you pick, it is always a lie with Britain, it is exactly like the fantasy reports generated by the Romanian regime,

    For example, when one fifth of the CP were hosted in Britain, did anybody go to jail? Or was it a case of the IWF coming into being, not to resolve that, but to protect NGs transacting CP

    Does anybody go to jail in the UK, for stuff? I have attended a heap of meeting with the Home Office and the answer is usually ‘no’.

    ‘While no accurate figure exists on how many children are involved in prostitution, Home Office figures show that between 1989 and 1995, 2380 cautions were issued and 1730 convictions were secured against children and young people under the age of 18 for offences relating to soliciting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the age of children on the streets is going down, with the youngest ever child ever cautioned for prostitution being only 10 years old.’

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14092082

    So social workers, name me a dozen that were ever any good, since the 1960s.

    I’m serious, did Britain ever produce, the genuine article, or was it always politics?

    Baz

  • Dave

    “Most crimes relating to children in the UK are by males, very few female culprits statistically, and it is the same in the US.” – Baz est fresco em Vermont

    In regard to the US, your statement is blatantly false. The published US-government facts show that the majority of pertetrators of crimes against childern (58%) are females, whereas 42% are males.

    Knock yourself out with said facts:

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/table5_1.htm

    “Her stupidity does not absolve her of responsibility for the consequences of that stupidity.” – Dave

    “Do you know any education ministers within 50 miles of Belfast refusing to ban sex offenders from working in schools?” – Baz est fresco em Vermont

    I haven’t a clue what you are talking about, but that is most likely because neither do you. What has the actions of third parties got to do with my claim that responsibility for the actions of individuals resides with the individuals concerned? Stupidity, however common, is not a defence in law.

    Most of those bloody slags with four or five kids (by different fathers) choose to form relationships with thugs who are seen as ‘alpha’ males and have a rep among the other tower block thrash for being a bit of hard man. They think it gives them status in their subculture, and any considerations about the wisdom of dating known violent criminals is brushed aside with the belief that she is ‘special’ and only she can tame him, etc. And before you rabbit on about ‘classism’ and how she is a victim of manipulation techniques by a classic sociopath and should be treated as a victim, consider how that culture of apologetics and seeing the woman as the victim (when she is more likely to be the victimiser) allows the interests of the children to be overlooked. She (and he) are victims of their own stupidity, deserving of no support from the state, while the children are overlooked on the dubious assumption that the criminally stupid are fit and proper people to care for children.

  • Dave

    “Most crimes relating to children in the UK are by males, very few female culprits statistically, and it is the same in the US.” – Baz est fresco em Vermont

    “That’s unfair, we all know the Brits don’t keep statistics, so it is a bit silly asking for something, that one hs to accept, simply isn’t there.” – Baz est fresco em Vermont

    Ah right… so you based your statistical comparison on statistics that you also claim don’t exist.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Please ignore the mentally-disturbed troll.

  • Kathleen

    Comrade Stalin @ 11.59pm

    Yes I know some social workers too who are very stressed, but in the case of baby p the system let that child down, and especially after the harrowing case of victoria climbie, it did show that the system failed again. Sharon Shoesmith in particular deserved all the criticism she got. Systemic failure can be fixed to a point where this kind of thing should not happen.

    From the doctors in the hospital to the social workers involved right up to shoesmith deserved all criticism and punishment that came their way.

    Of course individuals work hard. I know lots of priests who work hard too, but the church is stigmatised with child abuse allegations and it makes the job of those who do work hard and properly all that much harder. But the church, like the state has failed many victims.

    While responsibility lies with the parents, and in many cases solely with the mother, and not wishing to relieve her of any responsibility, the safety net of the state also failed, from the hospital doctor to the social worker involved and on up in the baby p case.

    Lessons should have been learnt, that weren’t learnt, and the public reaction that followed, from the newspaper headlines to the justice marches for baby p and the genuine anger felt by the general public cannot be ignored. Lesson that should have been learnt, MUST now be learnt, before any more children die.

  • wild turkey

    ‘Please ignore the mentally-disturbed troll. ‘

    CS, thanks for the advice.

    I was under the assumption we were dealing with a ropey, or dopey, random word generator.

    Kathleen, agree with your above points re Ms Shoestring… but why do I think within six months she will have landed herself a £100k+ post? Perhaps some people just interview well.

  • Dr. Doll

    “Ah right… so you based your statistical comparison on statistics that you also claim don’t exist.”

    I’m affiliated to a US govt. programme, I would use our stats. We do keep track of what we’ve done and what we haven’t.

    Males ( in Britain) do ( virtually all) the offending re: the US stats. They are not British stats.

    It is a UN/USA discourse, I don’t think the locals are involved, Patricia has I suppose improved the game a little since she went to Niccy.

    The Brits don’t really keep stats, and the last 7 years has been a struggle to persuade them to do so.

    The Frivolity of Evil, contribution, hit the nail on the head, if they start keeping stats, then the poop hits the fan

    If you look at anything, over the years, the idea of ‘not keeping stats’ has always been to the fore with the Brits, and that’s reflected in the UUP, G/TIP activity or whatever else went on.

    So, s UUP press release or PQ, would typically complain of the Brits not keeping any stats. Esmond Birnie was particularly well regarded by G/TIP in the USA.

    When the US enforcment end would show-up, (and there are ‘Kim Philby’ style limitations), they mostly talk about numbers.

    The Brits retaliate via proxy, and accuse the USA of X, Y and Z, usually tagged onto the notion of or in tandem, with ‘Russia’.

    If one is claiming women do ‘most’ crimes of abuse involving children, then it is a bit silly, because not only is it not true, it isn’t even close to being true.

    The UK development work took the same form as our work with the Catholic Church in the USA and Canada. If you like that often takes a ‘how many’ format.

    There is good money to be made persuading either CEOP or the IWF to open up (for example). Even the Guardian, worked out that CEOP don’t keep stats, they got that far.

    Crackdown on net abusers – but what’s behind the numbers …
    21 Apr 2008 … Crackdown on net abusers – but what’s behind the numbers? This article was first published on guardian.co.uk at 16.05 BST on Monday 21 April …

    They don’t keep track of outcomes, most of their worek is FBI lead, & etc.

    And the strategic child protection in the UK, relies extesively on the USA.

    So US stats are fine

  • I spot a mistake

    “In regard to the US, your statement is blatantly false. The published US-government facts show that the majority of pertetrators of crimes against childern (58%) are females, whereas 42% are males.”

    That’s simply not true in a practical way,

    ‘Map shows where child porn has been downloaded 14 million times in last 3 years’

    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article10997.ece

    The anti-woman constituency, they whittle it down to sink estates and single Mothers, and then they claim that women do most,

    ( its pathetic)

    Men do most of the serious abuse crime, re: kids, and that only changes if one gives a statistical free pass to sex abuse & whatever,

    The misogynistic ‘slag’ theory, I don’t buy into.

  • random word generator

    “I was under the assumption we were dealing with a ropey, or dopey, random word generator.”

    The number one child protection cop,

    the special Branch hero from Ulster, is issuing statements defending himself in the face of the random word generator.

    Not that Jimbo’s defenders, are ‘orthodox’ and as usual they are tainted with the Xbiz

    [PDF] ESSAY
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
    See generally , Adult Entertainment and …… Jim Gamble, one of the chairs for the task force and the …
    cwsl.edu/content/journals/Calvert.pdf – Similar pages

    The locals in NI are not involved in ‘global’ child protection issues.

    Which is why CEOP/IWF have a strategy to deal with the RWG and are happy to ignore everybody else.

    They don’t keep stats, they’re not allowed to.

    RWG

    Any scholars that write press releases and propaganda for pornographers disguised as law review articles, and rely on pornographers for legal analysis are unlikely to be taken very seriously by anyone with much intelligence, and indeed it doesn’t appear that they are. What I find surprising is that Penn State would fund a Center so utterly without balance. It appears to be run by three white men who are utterly smitten by pornography, but completely disinterested in any traditional academic research on the issue.
    http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=3054

  • A serious thread totally subverted. Sorry, Kathleen: you raised a serious topic; but it’s probably hopeless now.

    So:
    1. Does anyone understand Dr. Doll @ 01:48 PM, because it leaves me cold. Does it translate into English (or even Irish, Latin, Greek, French or schoolboy German: all of which I could just about cope with)?
    2. I’m not wholly sold on Kathleen’s late addition to the original post. If the social protection scheme is not wholly robust, it will not pick up “at risk” cases. Therefore the local authority escapes blame at one level. This is, in the view of “do nothing” Conservatives on ideological Councils, a result.
    3. The abuse of social workers is disgraceful.
    4. The list of recommendations from the joint area review of safeguarding in Haringey is illuminating:

    * A failure to identify children at risk of immediate harm and to act on evidence.
    * Agencies working in isolation from each other.
    * Poor gathering, recording and sharing of information.
    * Inconsistent quality of frontline practice and insufficient evidence of supervision.
    * Insufficient oversight of the assistant director of children’s services by the director of children’s services and chief executive.
    * Incomplete reporting of the management audit report by senior officials to elected members.
    * Insufficient challenge by the local safeguarding children board to its members and also to frontline staff.
    * An overdependence on performance data, which was not always accurate.
    * Poor child protection plans.

    That is why Sharon Shoesmith (originally an education officer, drafted in to head a combined department) had to go. Despite the spittle-frothed effusions these threads seem to attract, Shoesmith did not personally batter any child. Nor did the elected Councillors, traduced for partisan political advantage by those who should know better.
    5. Is it not a bitter irony that every member of the social service team, from front-line to the top administrators, has been named, shamed and vilified, while two of the three accused of the brutality remain anonymous?
    6. Finally, are we ignoring the real political issue? Try this:

    Rise in UK’s child mortality rate is linked to inequality

    Britain has the second highest child death rate among the 24 richest countries in the world, with infants in the UK twice as likely to die before the age of five as children in Sweden, a study has shown.

    The researchers, from Dundee University, who link relatively high infant mortality with income inequality, found that in the UK the gap between the haves and the have-nots was the third biggest among the 24 countries.

  • Stooge

    “A serious thread totally subverted. Sorry, Kathleen: you raised a serious topic; but it’s probably hopeless now.”

    You are not helping,

    some of the other people were being silly,

    Britain doesn’t do stats on many key areas, UNICEF & etc. have to reverse engineer data. I’m employed in that area.

    To return to the topic.

    To pick single mothers or ‘slags’ as some folks would have it, as the sole area we need stats on, just isn’t for real.

    It is wrong to say that women do more crimes re: abuse than males, because there is no evidence for that, quite the reverse.

    It was useful to point trhat out. Kathleen started the thread, that was a issue.

    If you want to talk about UNICEF, I’m all here for you.

    Stooge

  • Yaz

    “I often wonder does it have something to do with a woman wanting to hold on to a man at any price?”

    If one is prepared to set low standards to retain one can set low standards to select partners

    so it is a cycle, and having low quality or hi turnover male co-habitation, is not going to deliver the better otcomes.

    so it is a factor

  • Comrade Stalin

    Kathleen, time to start deleting posts and getting the red card out.

  • Peter Politburo

    Mr. Stalin

    What posts do you want to delete? Kathleen @ 01:21 PM was a reasonably straightforward topic.

    I suppose we could delete the ‘slag’ posts and one or two of yours.

    UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, collect my press cuttings, I don’t do ‘slag’ articles or fake statistical revelations.

    Peter Politburo

  • Gregory

    “Is it not a bitter irony that every member of the social service team, from front-line to the top administrators, has been named, shamed and vilified, while two of the three accused of the brutality remain anonymous? ”

    The problem in Britain is a ‘culture’ of ‘not fit for purpose’ institutions.

    and the fault rests with the people who refused to take the Soham or Victoria Climbie scandals seriously enough to learn from mistakes.

    Establishing the likelihood of future harm is not always easy, but on the other hand, it isn’t always difficult either.

    When baby P died in a blood-spattered crib, he had eight fractured ribs, a broken back and had swallowed one of his teeth after being struck in the mouth.

    So we should name the officials.

    Gregory

  • Iano

    As Malcolm pointed out above with one amendment. Sharon Shoesmith had a review of her department a week before the Baby P case and she found that her staff was wonderful.

  • Iano @ 12:01 PM:

    A further subtle revision of history, I fear.

    What does that posting mean?

    As far as Haringey is concerned, the “Baby P” case dates from before the child’s birth. Or does Iano @ 12:01 PM date it from the child’s murder? Or does Iano @ 12:01 PM, like Lynne Featherstone and the other revellers at the wake, date it from the moment they could occupy headlines?

    As for “reviews”, does Iano @ 12:01 PM mean the crucial and inadequate 12 March 2007 review (from which subsequent Haringey internal reviews stem), of which Lawrence Davies, of Equal Justice, complained:

    … the public cannot understand how Ofsted could have given Haringey Council a clean bill of health after the Baby P tragedy.

    Put simply, if Ofsted had carried out the same rigorous inspection on 12 March 2007 as they did in November 2008, … the subsequent proper management of Baby P file may have resulted in the child being properly protected.

    That seems to place primary responsibility for oversight failings at the door of Ofsted. However, Ofsted is (for most people) a faceless acronym. It’s much more fun to have a real face traduced in the Daily Mail and a fully-tooled-up lynch-mob at the doors of Wood Green Civic Centre. And, in that last phrase, I jest not.

    What is omitted here is the multiple jeopordy risked by professionals. There are numerous professional and regulatory bodies, trial by media, the court of public opinion, the proper judicial process, and continued indecent ignorance of facts. There is also “helpful” self-exculpation by other professions, making sure the odd death does not impair their PR.

    As I have noted before, Haringey is one small local authority. It carries carry out a dozen child-custody reviews each and every week. That there are not regular “Baby P” episodes, ghouling the tabloid headlines and satisfying all morbid shroud-wavers, is testimony to the dedication of numerous professionals across the country. But, as was said wisely on another occasion: “Today we were unlucky, but — remember — we only have to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always.”

  • Gregory

    The idea of joining up the Victoria Climbié reforms, with ‘education’ promised the horrifying prospect the inefficiencies would just become more expertly inefficient.

    Shoesmith had chaired the case review into the death of Baby P and that was ‘not fit for purpose’ which is what I would have expected & predicted.

    The blame for failing to understand political seriousness is not going to be accepted by the very top brass,

    it is the same as Soham, the blame there was attached to cabinet govt. So the public outrage, requires somebody important, but as a practical exercise not that important,

    (I would refer you to Kathleen’s linked article, the Blairite inheritance, will never accept, what they have done, to society)

    “As Malcolm pointed out above with one amendment. Sharon Shoesmith had a review of her department a week before the Baby P case and she found that her staff was wonderful.”

    What does that mean? The GErman and Us torpedoes in WWII worked perectly according to their inspectorates, howevre they were wooden rifles,

    For example, as a typical test of fit for purposeness, OFSTED gave

    Ofsted acts to reform school in sex scandal
    By Paul Stokes
    Last Updated: 2:06AM BST 14 Apr 2008
    A comprehensive school where up to 14 members of staff had sexual affairs with pupils has been put into special measures.

    A wonderfully fan tazy dozy review, before being directed to look into the fact it was really a bit of a brothel.

    The ‘Paul Reeve’ OFSTED review of vetting as a record keeping exercise, was itself ordered in early 2006, because Ruth Kelly was aware the FBI couldn’t find evidence of a vetting system in relation to the British schools involved in their work.

    ( again and again, systemic problems in Britain were discovered because of their impact overseas)

    At the stage of the Ruth Kelly thing, they’d deciphered how a major ‘organization’ had dismantled the vetting system with particular attention to independent lists maintained by LEAs.

    ( By 2006, vetting, as a practical function, was almost completely gone)

    From the outside looking in, point of view, the entire issue is firmly stuck in the kind of cultural problems identified in Islington with Margaret Hodge.

    What we have and had, was PR systems designed, to deliver public confidence.

  • Gregory

    “As I have noted before, Haringey is one small local authority. It carries carry out a dozen child-custody reviews each and every week. That there are not regular “Baby P” episodes, ghouling the tabloid headlines and satisfying all morbid shroud-wavers, is testimony to the dedication of numerous professionals across the country”

    That attitude is naive, you have no idea what is out there, and I think Lynne Featherstone went some way to addressing why you are wrong and I don’t think Ms Featherstone’s perspective was that unreasonable.

    Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, added: “I very much welcome her departure without a single penny.
    “Hopefully it marks a break with the culture of secrecy, failure and deceit that failed Baby P.
    “Under her watch, inspectors and the people of Haringey were lied to and those who sought to challenge her were silenced.
    “Once the truth was finally uncovered the horrific catalogue of failings clearly amount to wilful neglect of duty on her part.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/3685182/Sharon-Shoesmith-sacked-by-Haringey-Council.html

  • Gregory

    “There is also “helpful” self-exculpation by other professions, making sure the odd death does not impair their PR.”

    There are organizations out there who are not allowed to do that.

    I’ll stick my hands up, I was asked to make sure the Belgians and Brits didn’t mess up the PR attached to the FBI.

    An insight into the kind of problems was reported upon by one of Iano’s colleagues

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/global-trail-of-abuse-led-to-arrest-of-five-suspects-1216616.html

    The British & the Belgians both have extensive policies of ‘laundering’ people who are a threat to children, and obviously the knowledge of that is a liability.

    The ‘not wanting to officially know’ aspects are countered by the fact that Britain is blamed by other partner nations,

    and the FBI is piggy in the middle, and lastly there are US child victims.

  • Iano

    I was pointing out the lack of independence in the review. It has all the credibility of a bank ripping your business plan to shreds while allowing their own staff to invest in derivaives which they did nt understand.

  • Gregory

    She was given a fair enough shake, by the standards that apply to the UK, she zealously over-played her own hand,

    no compensation, no payment in lieu of notice and never working for the local authority again, that is her friends telling her she blew it.

    She broke the rules, she was far too arrogant,

    “there is no hiding place for incompetence and deceit for those charged with looking after the vulnerable children in our society.”

    http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=7965

    A Lib Dem view, She doesn’t deserve sympathy, the writing was on the wall for her,

    she was a career quangocrat, a loose cannon, who failed to spot the tremors of fear in those above her.

    ‘Mr Balls said yesterday he would be “astonished” if Ms Shoesmith received any pay-off or compensation for losing her job, but stressed that this was a decision for Haringey Council.’

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Anger_mounts_over_£2K-a-week_payments_to_axed_Baby_P_council_chief&in_article_id=428193&in_page_id=34

    She got off quite lightly, given her lack of appreciation for the trouble she was causing to the govt.

    George Meehan, was Labour Leader of Haringey during the Victoria Climbie period, it is worth remembering the damning conclusions in Lord Laming’s report.

    They were lucky to be treated as well as they were.

  • I know George Meehan. Let me tell you, Gregory @ 07:05 PM, you’re no George Meehan.

    If that rings a bell, I can add that George has served his community well and honourably, in four decades. He is a honest son of the County Donegal, a good father, and a fine man.

    Now, Gregory @ 07:05 PM, make sure you can spell “potato”.

  • Gregory

    I don’t see a future in politics for him,

    Some of the protesters had placards asking for Haringey Council to be cleansed once and for all,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087113/Haringey-council-bosses-heckled-finally-issue-heartfelt-apology-Baby-P.html

    There you go

    ‘The council that failed to protect Baby P spent £19,000 on spin doctors hired to rebuild the image of former head of children’s services Sharon Shoesmith, it emerged today.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092821/Haringey-council-paid-19-000-spin-doctors-protect-Baby-P-social-worker.html

    The Labour Party, are if nothing, entirely predictable, if it doesn’t have boo koo of spin, it is not a viable course of action.

  • Gregory

    “I know George Meehan. Let me tell you, Gregory @ 07:05 PM, you’re no George Meehan.”

    He was basically a cog in the wheel.

    Mr. Meehan was however, in the right place, as a relative (political) non-entity to make a difference.

    George Meehan and his kind, were never going to be a positive part of a serious initiative relating to strategic child protection,

    that Haringey managed to do that (nothing) between Baby P and Victoria Climbie, is a considerable deficit.

    One of the problems the Brits have is a pathological determination to fix everything, almost everything, within the confines of media relations and public confidence activism.

    George Meehan’s environment was the same, his leadership potentially had as much cash spent on spin than on working out why a baby was dead. Is that being unfair, do I exaggerate?

    So when UN experts point out, that the entire rigmarole ( in Britain) is defective, inadequate, or BS, the official response is yet more spin doctoring. If you want to link that to NI, I can put it in a local package.

    But the NSPCC is a good corporate example.

    BBC NEWS | England | NSPCC ‘delayed action’ over Climbie
    25 Jan 2002 … The public inquiry into Victoria Climbie’s death uncovered damning … crucial details on NSPCC files were changed after Victoria’s death. …
    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1781399.stm – 47k – Cached – Similar pages

    That’s what you have in Britain, 300 million pounds worth of spin.

    Gregory