But yet we are informed of another failure on the part of SSs and a 12 year old boy has now lost the sight of one eye and may loose the other and his two year old sister has been put up for adoption.
And the signs of such neglect were that obvious to anyone who opened their eyes.
If the signs were obvious to anyone who opened their eyes then they would have been obvious to the school, the school nurse, the gp, the family and friends of this boy as well as social services. Child protection is a multi agency process and decisions are made by all agencies involved so why have you singled out SS when you say that the signs were obvious to everyone?
You put your points across very well and succinctly for such a complex issue Callys Mum. There are many excellent social workers who do a tremendous job under extreme pressures and never get the praise they rightly deserve. However, as the report highlighted, there were a catalogue of errors that led to this little boys death, some of them so basic, it bordered on the staggering and it was only right people had to account for them. This would apply to all agencies, Police, Doctors, Social workers, otherwise we treat the death of a child with contempt. How you can compare mistakes we all make to the death of a child in such a flippant manner worries me. As for the media getting involved in the foray, unfortunately, that is what they do, perhaps you are being somewhat naive. Do you remember the death of Stephen Lawrence and the role the media played in bringing the killers to court when the Police were totally inept and perhaps complicit in not arresting the four people involved and led to huge changes within the Met because of the report that came later. Perhaps you think the media were wrong then and should have stayed quiet
Oh yes, I am only too well aware of how the media get involved. I am not actually naive. I have seen this happen time and time again and for all the good that sometimes happens because of their interference, there are also the bad things. The social worker involved never went home again because of death threats. The doctor was close to suicide and subsequently had a nervous breakdown because of the threats and the treatment meted out by the Scum (my personal favourite nickname for the rag I reference). Sharon Shoesmith also received death threats as did her own daughter. That is what the media (The Scum etc) and their various campaigns do. They play on the emotions of people, whip them up into a frenzy and don't give a toss about the consequences such as nervous breakdowns, death threats, etc because .. Well, they deserved it, didn't they?
And because of them the report was rushed through. Key facts were omitted. A full picture was not achieved. And that is what the documentary was about. It was not absolving all blame and neither was it about giving a platform to anyone to say it wasn't their fault. It was an exercise to try and rectify the situation that found good people trying to do their job in the spotlight of a campaign that set about trying to smear them because the true culprits at that time couldn't be named due to ongoing charges and cases.
And it was all done to sell newspapers. No other reason. If they cared so much about abused children, why didn't they go on to report, name and shame those involved in the deaths of the 200+ children since? Because they DON'T care. They prey on and feed off misery, creating more misery, just to sell their wares. They invented things, they exaggerated and went with the bare minimum of facts and caused the Government to rush through something which should have taken months, missing key information (which was mentioned numerous times on the programme) and barely mentioning the fact that those who were villified, on the whole, did report things, that were not followed up and those at the top (aside from Sharon Shoesmith) were never held to account.
I know this is an emotive issue and I appreciate that it is something that people feel strongly about, but a lot of prejudice still exists BECAUSE of the Scum's reports at the time and because the report which does exist is incomplete and skewed to read a certain way.
I really wish that things had happened quicker, that mistakes had not been made, not only in this case but in EVERY case where a child is abused or killed by family members. Unfortunately that is never going to happen despite what we may wish. The best we can do is expect the support of families, of children and of those trying to help them without them feeling that if they fail because of circumstances that they can do nothing about, they will be hounded to dismissal, nervous breakdowns or suicide.
We also need a press who report news impartially instead of getting involved or, worse still, twisting things to suit their own agenda.
I guess what I am trying to say is :
1. There but for the grace of God(s) go I and
2. Is there anyone here who can say that if they worked with children as a social worker or doctor, the would never, ever, ever make a mistake? Because if there is, then that person is either lying through their teeth or they are a fool.
Oh yes, I am only too well aware of how the media get involved. I am not actually naive. I have seen this happen time and time again and for all the good that sometimes happens because of their interference, there are also the bad things. The social worker involved never went home again because of death threats. The doctor was close to suicide and subsequently had a nervous breakdown because of the threats and the treatment meted out by the Scum (my personal favourite nickname for the rag I reference). Sharon Shoesmith also received death threats as did her own daughter. That is what the media (The Scum etc) and their various campaigns do. They play on the emotions of people, whip them up into a frenzy and don't give a toss about the consequences such as nervous breakdowns, death threats, etc because .. Well, they deserved it, didn't they?
And because of them the report was rushed through. Key facts were omitted. A full picture was not achieved. And that is what the documentary was about. It was not absolving all blame and neither was it about giving a platform to anyone to say it wasn't their fault. It was an exercise to try and rectify the situation that found good people trying to do their job in the spotlight of a campaign that set about trying to smear them because the true culprits at that time couldn't be named due to ongoing charges and cases.
And it was all done to sell newspapers. No other reason. If they cared so much about abused children, why didn't they go on to report, name and shame those involved in the deaths of the 200+ children since? Because they DON'T care. They prey on and feed off misery, creating more misery, just to sell their wares. They invented things, they exaggerated and went with the bare minimum of facts and caused the Government to rush through something which should have taken months, missing key information (which was mentioned numerous times on the programme) and barely mentioning the fact that those who were villified, on the whole, did report things, that were not followed up and those at the top (aside from Sharon Shoesmith) were never held to account.
I know this is an emotive issue and I appreciate that it is something that people feel strongly about, but a lot of prejudice still exists BECAUSE of the Scum's reports at the time and because the report which does exist is incomplete and skewed to read a certain way.
I really wish that things had happened quicker, that mistakes had not been made, not only in this case but in EVERY case where a child is abused or killed by family members. Unfortunately that is never going to happen despite what we may wish. The best we can do is expect the support of families, of children and of those trying to help them without them feeling that if they fail because of circumstances that they can do nothing about, they will be hounded to dismissal, nervous breakdowns or suicide.
We also need a press who report news impartially instead of getting involved or, worse still, twisting things to suit their own agenda.
I guess what I am trying to say is :
1. There but for the grace of God(s) go I and
2. Is there anyone here who can say that if they worked with children as a social worker or doctor, the would never, ever, ever make a mistake? Because if there is, then that person is either lying through their teeth or they are a fool.
Yet again you put your points eloquently and fair, it was not however the medias fault of idiots to espouse their venom and threaten people under a cloak of secrecy, just like it is not the fault of twitter/facebook creating trolls, these people have always existed and will use whatever issues are out there to justify their own pathetic existence. If what you say is true (and I have no reason not to believe you) then it is up to the Police if threats are made and up to the organisations to take care of their staff while investigations are ongoing. It was Sharon Shoesmith who brought this onto herself when she gave a crass interview extolling an Ofsted report rather than being contrite over the death of a little boy who was in the care of social services. Perhaps if she had adopted this then perhaps the media wouldn't have gone into frenzy, as some people have suggested. Let us also remember, this tragedy was played out on all the TV channels and was not just about selling newspapers
If the signs were obvious to anyone who opened their eyes then they would have been obvious to the school, the school nurse, the gp, the family and friends of this boy as well as social services. Child protection is a multi agency process and decisions are made by all agencies involved so why have you singled out SS when you say that the signs were obvious to everyone?
Hi Taglet,
But they did, on several occasions they raised their concerns to the authorities concerned, to no avail.
The point I was making was these kids were let down and one of the kids may now go blind.
This kid wrote " help me" using his excrement on the wall of his bedroom with a social worker having viewed it.
I agree with you, everyone has to work together but the multi agencies concerned are all at fault in this case, it is another failure that could have been avoided if early intervention had taken place.
For christ's sake, what does it take??
I know you care Taglet but what does it take to apply concern then action?
You will know this from some of my other posts, I'm not a believer in the removal of kids but there was clearly a proper argument/case in this instance for doing so early on.
Of course Cally is correct, the ultimate responsibility for such neglect lays with the parents,---or does it?
When they both have clearly failed as parents, does their neglect then minimise the SSs because that is what it is.
it was not however the medias fault of idiots to espouse their venom and threaten people under a cloak of secrecy, just like it is not the fault of twitter/facebook creating trolls, these people have always existed and will use whatever issues are out there to justify their own pathetic existence. If what you say is true (and I have no reason not to believe you) then it is up to the Police if threats are made and up to the organisations to take care of their staff while investigations are ongoing. It was Sharon Shoesmith who brought this onto herself when she gave a crass interview extolling an Ofsted report rather than being contrite over the death of a little boy who was in the care of social services. Perhaps if she had adopted this then perhaps the media wouldn't have gone into frenzy, as some people have suggested. Let us also remember, this tragedy was played out on all the TV channels and was not just about selling newspapers
BIB1
We live in a democracy with freedom of speech. This does mean that there is freedom for idiots to spout nonsense and nasty individuals to spout venom. The only way to stop this is to be a totalitarian state. Thankfully UK is not close to this (yet) but the undercurrents in the public sector are there (Common Purpose). As for the criminal acts committed by the those sending abuse to Social Services they needed to be dealt with under the laws we have in place.
BIB2As has been said time and time again it was her attitude when this story broke that sparked the firestorm.
. However, as the report highlighted, there were a catalogue of errors that led to this little boys death, some of them so basic, it bordered on the staggering and it was only right people had to account for them. This would apply to all agencies, Police, Doctors, Social workers, otherwise we treat the death of a child with contempt. How you can compare mistakes we all make to the death of a child in such a flippant manner worries me. As for the media getting involved in the foray, unfortunately, that is what they do, perhaps you are being somewhat naive. Do you remember the death of Stephen Lawrence and the role the media played in bringing the killers to court when the Police were totally inept and perhaps complicit in not arresting the four people involved and led to huge changes within the Met because of the report that came later. Perhaps you think the media were wrong then and should have stayed quiet
BIB3Goes back to the Shoesmith press conference where sadly this was the impression she gave. Continued again this week. The social worker just had an air of naivety rather than arrogance.
BIB4
I would use the world fortunately. Our press may be the most robust / uncontrollable in the world but it is a sign of a strong democracy. We would be a far worse place without the challenging / demanding nature of our press. That also includes internet and tv. The state would just love a docile press that can be controlled. Oh to be able to hide away the loss of little boys like BabyP. The abuse of public money via MP's expenses. etc. etc.
Then you would have to argue with the Children Act 1989 because the central tenant is that children are best raised by their parents and only if that places a child at significant risk of harm should alternative care be sought. Time and money spend on supporting "inadequate" parents is to give them the best possible chance of developing the skills to care for their own children and it is something that the courts demand is evidenced before they will grant an order to remove them on a permanent basis.
I don't think I would be alone in arguing with the Children Act 1989 as you describe it. Just because there is legislation does not make it right or impossible to challenge. If it did society would be in a pickle.
I find it interesting that no one has criticised the media woman from ITV who talked about intentionally whipping up a frenzy and how she relished in finding a cute picture of Peter in order to garner more of a reaction. If you really think the papers and media aren't out to create a frenzy to sell papers, then you are deluded.
BIB1
We live in a democracy with freedom of speech. This does mean that there is freedom for idiots to spout nonsense and nasty individuals to spout venom. The only way to stop this is to be a totalitarian state. Thankfully UK is not close to this (yet) but the undercurrents in the public sector are there (Common Purpose). As for the criminal acts committed by the those sending abuse to Social Services they needed to be dealt with under the laws we have in place.
BIB2As has been said time and time again it was her attitude when this story broke that sparked the firestorm.
BIB3Goes back to the Shoesmith press conference where sadly this was the impression she gave. Continued again this week. The social worker just had an air of naivety rather than arrogance.
BIB4
I would use the world fortunately. Our press may be the most robust / uncontrollable in the world but it is a sign of a strong democracy. We would be a far worse place without the challenging / demanding nature of our press. That also includes internet and tv. The state would just love a docile press that can be controlled. Oh to be able to hide away the loss of little boys like BabyP. The abuse of public money via MP's expenses. etc. etc.
Not sure of the essence of your post Aurora, this kinda sums up what I was saying, or have I missed something obvious, my apologies if I have
I find it interesting that no one has criticised the media woman from ITV who talked about intentionally whipping up a frenzy and how she relished in finding a cute picture of Peter in order to garner more of a reaction. If you really think the papers and media aren't out to create a frenzy to sell papers, then you are deluded.
ITV are out to sell newspapers, run that by me again, and they also set out to whip up a frenzy....really?
ITV are out to sell newspapers, run that by me again, and they also set out to whip up a frenzy....really?
The woman from ITV, I can't recall her name, spoke about how she found the cutest picture of Baby P that she could and sold it to the newspapers. She was practically gleeful when speaking about it.
The woman from ITV, I can't recall her name, spoke about how she found the cutest picture of Baby P that she could and sold it to the newspapers. She was practically gleeful when speaking about it.
Do you think this story should have been surpressed? It should not have been reported in national press to avoid public being angered?. The public shouldn't be able to put a face to BabyP who died in such tragic circumstances?
Do you think this story should have been surpressed? It should not have been reported in national press to avoid public being angered?. The public shouldn't be able to put a face to BabyP who died in such tragic circumstances?
It was the cynucal way she went about it. Finding 'the cutest picture she could find' rather than just finding a picture smacks of cynicism and the need to sensationalise an already sensationalised story. I found it quite telling that she squirmed quite uncomfortably when she was questioned about her motives. If it had been merely to accompany a news story, which us what the story was, then she could have simply said so. Instead, she opted to say nothing and look uncomfortable instead.
And this is one more instance of the press crossing the line from REPORTING the news to MAKING it. True journalism seems to have been eradicated. Instead we now see this salacious, grubby intrusion into lives, witch hunts which quite honestly would not have been out of place in the middle ages and attacks on anyone who has a problem with this style of 'reporting'.
News media I see as a reflection of the society it serves. Take from that what you will. All I will say is that it behoves us as human beings to strive for better, for more understanding, more compassion for our fellow man, more forgiveness. Otherwise, what are we really learning and how do we hope to make ourselves better?
I've just watched the programme as it was in my planner and I wasn't sure if I could watch it or not. What I have taken from it is that it was an appalling catalogue of events that no one comes out of blameless. Social services have a lot to answer for not helped by the attitude of Sharon Shoesmith. The Police were at fault, the clinic and Great Ormand Street were woefully lacking and when the Doctors in question voiced their concerns they were not listened too. All of this resulted in the horrific death of a little boy. Yes you can argue that the perpetrators are the ones to blame and of course they are in that physically they were responsible but all those agency's played their part in his death and their passing the buck is equally sickening. How many more times does this have to happen.
I've just watched the programme as it was in my planner and I wasn't sure if I could watch it or not. What I have taken from it is that it was an appalling catalogue of events that no one comes out of blameless. Social services have a lot to answer for not helped by the attitude of Sharon Shoesmith. The Police were at fault, the clinic and Great Ormand Street were woefully lacking and when the Doctors in question voiced their concerns they were not listened too. All of this resulted in the horrific death of a little boy. Yes you can argue that the perpetrators are the ones to blame and of course they are in that physically they were responsible but all those agency's played their part in his death and their passing the buck is equally sickening. How many more times does this have to happen.
Succinct. Multi-agency failure. But it is the BIB that added/adds fuel to the fire creating a firestorm.
Do you think this story should have been surpressed? It should not have been reported in national press to avoid public being angered?. The public shouldn't be able to put a face to BabyP who died in such tragic circumstances?
It was the cynucal way she went about it. Finding 'the cutest picture she could find' rather than just finding a picture smacks of cynicism and the need to sensationalise an already sensationalised story. I found it quite telling that she squirmed quite uncomfortably when she was questioned about her motives. If it had been merely to accompany a news story, which us what the story was, then she could have simply said so. Instead, she opted to say nothing and look uncomfortable instead.
And this is one more instance of the press crossing the line from REPORTING the news to MAKING it. True journalism seems to have been eradicated. Instead we now see this salacious, grubby intrusion into lives, witch hunts which quite honestly would not have been out of place in the middle ages and attacks on anyone who has a problem with this style of 'reporting'.
News media I see as a reflection of the society it serves. Take from that what you will. All I will say is that it behoves us as human beings to strive for better, for more understanding, more compassion for our fellow man, more forgiveness. Otherwise, what are we really learning and how do we hope to make ourselves better?
Exactly, it wasn't just reporting, it was doing so with the intention to sensationalise and cause a frenzy. It was written all over that womans face and was clear in her words.
Factually and fairly report, fine. Sensationalise and stir dressed up as reporting, not fine.
But they did, on several occasions they raised their concerns to the authorities concerned, to no avail.
The point I was making was these kids were let down and one of the kids may now go blind.
This kid wrote " help me" using his excrement on the wall of his bedroom with a social worker having viewed it.
I agree with you, everyone has to work together but the multi agencies concerned are all at fault in this case, it is another failure that could have been avoided if early intervention had taken place.
For christ's sake, what does it take??
I know you care Taglet but what does it take to apply concern then action?
You will know this from some of my other posts, I'm not a believer in the removal of kids but there was clearly a proper argument/case in this instance for doing so early on.
Of course Cally is correct, the ultimate responsibility for such neglect lays with the parents,---or does it?
When they both have clearly failed as parents, does their neglect then minimise the SSs because that is what it is.
I dont know the case you are talking about seacam so I cant really say any more than I have said on the topic
"... – poor record-keeping and filing, unsuitable appointments, lack of partnership working, resource concerns, failing to act on warning signs, weak supervision and “a lamentable failure of communication” – were not buried with Dennis O’Neill. These failings were to feature regularly in inquiries held into the death or abuse of children in care for the next 60 years – up to and including that of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié. "
and:
"On average about 80 children die of abuse or neglect in England and Wales every year, and there have been more than 70 inquiries since the Children Act 1948. Each time their restricted remits have focused on single cases and honed in on failure, causing many to question their efficacy. In 1975, for example, the British Association of Social Workers declared inquiries “a pointless exercise, serving mainly to scapegoat social workers”.
Children have been tortured and killed in their own homes since time began, and I have read that there has been no change in the number of deaths annually since Victorian times. It would appear that for all our efforts we are unable to alter this appalling state of affairs. Should we blame the messenger for their method of reporting it? This seems to me to be almost the least of our problems where the subject is the miserable lives led by so many children.
Comments
Like I said....you dont get it.
Which report are we talking about? The one which omitted the factual information as described in the BBC programme?
If the signs were obvious to anyone who opened their eyes then they would have been obvious to the school, the school nurse, the gp, the family and friends of this boy as well as social services. Child protection is a multi agency process and decisions are made by all agencies involved so why have you singled out SS when you say that the signs were obvious to everyone?
Oh yes, I am only too well aware of how the media get involved. I am not actually naive. I have seen this happen time and time again and for all the good that sometimes happens because of their interference, there are also the bad things. The social worker involved never went home again because of death threats. The doctor was close to suicide and subsequently had a nervous breakdown because of the threats and the treatment meted out by the Scum (my personal favourite nickname for the rag I reference). Sharon Shoesmith also received death threats as did her own daughter. That is what the media (The Scum etc) and their various campaigns do. They play on the emotions of people, whip them up into a frenzy and don't give a toss about the consequences such as nervous breakdowns, death threats, etc because .. Well, they deserved it, didn't they?
And because of them the report was rushed through. Key facts were omitted. A full picture was not achieved. And that is what the documentary was about. It was not absolving all blame and neither was it about giving a platform to anyone to say it wasn't their fault. It was an exercise to try and rectify the situation that found good people trying to do their job in the spotlight of a campaign that set about trying to smear them because the true culprits at that time couldn't be named due to ongoing charges and cases.
And it was all done to sell newspapers. No other reason. If they cared so much about abused children, why didn't they go on to report, name and shame those involved in the deaths of the 200+ children since? Because they DON'T care. They prey on and feed off misery, creating more misery, just to sell their wares. They invented things, they exaggerated and went with the bare minimum of facts and caused the Government to rush through something which should have taken months, missing key information (which was mentioned numerous times on the programme) and barely mentioning the fact that those who were villified, on the whole, did report things, that were not followed up and those at the top (aside from Sharon Shoesmith) were never held to account.
I know this is an emotive issue and I appreciate that it is something that people feel strongly about, but a lot of prejudice still exists BECAUSE of the Scum's reports at the time and because the report which does exist is incomplete and skewed to read a certain way.
I really wish that things had happened quicker, that mistakes had not been made, not only in this case but in EVERY case where a child is abused or killed by family members. Unfortunately that is never going to happen despite what we may wish. The best we can do is expect the support of families, of children and of those trying to help them without them feeling that if they fail because of circumstances that they can do nothing about, they will be hounded to dismissal, nervous breakdowns or suicide.
We also need a press who report news impartially instead of getting involved or, worse still, twisting things to suit their own agenda.
I guess what I am trying to say is :
1. There but for the grace of God(s) go I and
2. Is there anyone here who can say that if they worked with children as a social worker or doctor, the would never, ever, ever make a mistake? Because if there is, then that person is either lying through their teeth or they are a fool.
Yet again you put your points eloquently and fair, it was not however the medias fault of idiots to espouse their venom and threaten people under a cloak of secrecy, just like it is not the fault of twitter/facebook creating trolls, these people have always existed and will use whatever issues are out there to justify their own pathetic existence. If what you say is true (and I have no reason not to believe you) then it is up to the Police if threats are made and up to the organisations to take care of their staff while investigations are ongoing. It was Sharon Shoesmith who brought this onto herself when she gave a crass interview extolling an Ofsted report rather than being contrite over the death of a little boy who was in the care of social services. Perhaps if she had adopted this then perhaps the media wouldn't have gone into frenzy, as some people have suggested. Let us also remember, this tragedy was played out on all the TV channels and was not just about selling newspapers
But they did, on several occasions they raised their concerns to the authorities concerned, to no avail.
The point I was making was these kids were let down and one of the kids may now go blind.
This kid wrote " help me" using his excrement on the wall of his bedroom with a social worker having viewed it.
I agree with you, everyone has to work together but the multi agencies concerned are all at fault in this case, it is another failure that could have been avoided if early intervention had taken place.
For christ's sake, what does it take??
I know you care Taglet but what does it take to apply concern then action?
You will know this from some of my other posts, I'm not a believer in the removal of kids but there was clearly a proper argument/case in this instance for doing so early on.
Of course Cally is correct, the ultimate responsibility for such neglect lays with the parents,---or does it?
When they both have clearly failed as parents, does their neglect then minimise the SSs because that is what it is.
BIB1
We live in a democracy with freedom of speech. This does mean that there is freedom for idiots to spout nonsense and nasty individuals to spout venom. The only way to stop this is to be a totalitarian state. Thankfully UK is not close to this (yet) but the undercurrents in the public sector are there (Common Purpose). As for the criminal acts committed by the those sending abuse to Social Services they needed to be dealt with under the laws we have in place.
BIB2As has been said time and time again it was her attitude when this story broke that sparked the firestorm.
BIB3Goes back to the Shoesmith press conference where sadly this was the impression she gave. Continued again this week. The social worker just had an air of naivety rather than arrogance.
BIB4
I would use the world fortunately. Our press may be the most robust / uncontrollable in the world but it is a sign of a strong democracy. We would be a far worse place without the challenging / demanding nature of our press. That also includes internet and tv. The state would just love a docile press that can be controlled. Oh to be able to hide away the loss of little boys like BabyP. The abuse of public money via MP's expenses. etc. etc.
I don't think I would be alone in arguing with the Children Act 1989 as you describe it. Just because there is legislation does not make it right or impossible to challenge. If it did society would be in a pickle.
Not sure of the essence of your post Aurora, this kinda sums up what I was saying, or have I missed something obvious, my apologies if I have
ITV are out to sell newspapers, run that by me again, and they also set out to whip up a frenzy....really?
The woman from ITV, I can't recall her name, spoke about how she found the cutest picture of Baby P that she could and sold it to the newspapers. She was practically gleeful when speaking about it.
I'm agreeing with you!
Do you think this story should have been surpressed? It should not have been reported in national press to avoid public being angered?. The public shouldn't be able to put a face to BabyP who died in such tragic circumstances?
It was the cynucal way she went about it. Finding 'the cutest picture she could find' rather than just finding a picture smacks of cynicism and the need to sensationalise an already sensationalised story. I found it quite telling that she squirmed quite uncomfortably when she was questioned about her motives. If it had been merely to accompany a news story, which us what the story was, then she could have simply said so. Instead, she opted to say nothing and look uncomfortable instead.
And this is one more instance of the press crossing the line from REPORTING the news to MAKING it. True journalism seems to have been eradicated. Instead we now see this salacious, grubby intrusion into lives, witch hunts which quite honestly would not have been out of place in the middle ages and attacks on anyone who has a problem with this style of 'reporting'.
News media I see as a reflection of the society it serves. Take from that what you will. All I will say is that it behoves us as human beings to strive for better, for more understanding, more compassion for our fellow man, more forgiveness. Otherwise, what are we really learning and how do we hope to make ourselves better?
Succinct. Multi-agency failure. But it is the BIB that added/adds fuel to the fire creating a firestorm.
Did I say that? No.
Exactly, it wasn't just reporting, it was doing so with the intention to sensationalise and cause a frenzy. It was written all over that womans face and was clear in her words.
Factually and fairly report, fine. Sensationalise and stir dressed up as reporting, not fine.
I dont know the case you are talking about seacam so I cant really say any more than I have said on the topic
"... – poor record-keeping and filing, unsuitable appointments, lack of partnership working, resource concerns, failing to act on warning signs, weak supervision and “a lamentable failure of communication” – were not buried with Dennis O’Neill. These failings were to feature regularly in inquiries held into the death or abuse of children in care for the next 60 years – up to and including that of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié. "
and:
"On average about 80 children die of abuse or neglect in England and Wales every year, and there have been more than 70 inquiries since the Children Act 1948. Each time their restricted remits have focused on single cases and honed in on failure, causing many to question their efficacy. In 1975, for example, the British Association of Social Workers declared inquiries “a pointless exercise, serving mainly to scapegoat social workers”.
Children have been tortured and killed in their own homes since time began, and I have read that there has been no change in the number of deaths annually since Victorian times. It would appear that for all our efforts we are unable to alter this appalling state of affairs. Should we blame the messenger for their method of reporting it? This seems to me to be almost the least of our problems where the subject is the miserable lives led by so many children.