Wednesday, 12 November 2008

A disaster in "Social Services"

Dealing day-to-day with all manner of troubled people might well create a sense of numbness or detachment. However, in the case of "Baby P" I do find it hard to believe that nothing was done for so long, despite the physical and logical warning signs given by Police and doctor alike.

Lets just see this: single mum. Boyfriend moved in. Male lodger. Baby gets bruised, injured.

Now, for some reason I have come away from the news reports under the impression that the mother withheld the fact that she had her boyfriend staying there. Was this a question of benefits? Was the fact that they had a lodger - erm...she renting a private flat with her own money or is she on benefits and in state housing? - also contribute to the problems? Why can a lodger able to fit into this accommodation, I wonder, but that is another story.

Yes, those who caused the injuries are to blame for them. Totally. However, the Mother AND the local SS are responsible for the continuation of such maltreatment and abuse considering they KNEW the child was being injured in such a way.

I find it hard to fathom. If you don't like screaming kids, DON'T shack up with a single mum, ok? It is THAT simple, MORON. But no, she has a place to stay, I suppose, and the rest. If this single mum were staying with grandma, even if they only had a 6'x8' box room, the welfare of this poor departed mite would have been infinitely better (unless the grandma was a crack den operator, I suppose).

When things like this happen, the thought returns that young single mums without support from their own grandma or ex partner are better off in sheltered hostels with other single mums and not out in their own flats where parasitical scumbags can get involved. If they have a man in their life, if he is working, has his own place, then maybe she moves out of the hostel and in with him and all is fine and dandy (unless the bloke smokes and they are in Redbridge, natch).

I am not a betting man, but I would bet a pint that the boyfriend and lodger were not in gainful employ, at least according to the local benefit office.

The local council appears to be acting as accused, judge and jury. The victim is free from suffering, one could say, yet has had their life robbed from them. I hope they return to a happier household and their next life be free from suffering.

In all of this little details become grit in the eye. You only need to look at the name of a group - dreamt up at some expensive off-siter I suspect - to get a gist at what wibble must come out of it: 

"The Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board" 

Apart from the ghastly newspeak "safeguarding", whatever that self-important patronising nonsense means, the title does not scan, and appears to be a grammatical train-wreck. Shunt it into a siding and break it up for scrap. Please.

No comments: