“If your fridge is full this Christmas, use nature’s refridgerator - your car” - Anthea Tuner on GMTV
Marks & Spencer Bag A Life Campaign
Workers sacked by Dervla Kirwan (6:30 ITV1) and David Jason (7:45 ITV2)
2009: Anorak’s Diary
Obama rising, Gore sinking, Jamie Oliver exported, Beckham chipping, Ledger returning
Terrorists Target Jews Sugar, Winehouse and Ronson: Blair Outraged
UK Jews on and not on terror list
BABY P is dead. Baby P was murdered by sadists. The 17-month-old was tortured to death by his mother and two men.
Baby P was first introduced to us in the form of a virtual reality 4-D model. The wounds were smears of red and purple.
Jurors saw the wounds. Then readers saw the wounds. Then Baby P was shown with his face blurred out. But this was not enough.
Now Baby P is on the cover of the Times. You can see his face. You can see his face on the cover of the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The Sun and The Independent.
The Mail goes one better. It has “TWO FACES OF BABY P” on its cover.
To the left, readers see the same blond child as on the other papers.
“He reaches out towards an unseen figure behind the camera, and the start of a smile lifts his chubby cheeks, exposing his first baby teeth.” Note his “bright blue eyes and white-blond hair”.
Yeah, blonde.
To the right, the image shows Baby P’s faced “smeared with chocolate to cover the wounds that would kill him”.
Deborah Orr has already seen enough:
As a person with conventional views about how to bring up children, I’d consider a mother who had no shame in presenting her small child to authorities covered in chocolate (as the mother of Baby P did, to hide his wounds) to be neglectful enough. I don’t hold with giving chocolate to babies. I don’t hold with carting them about with food or anything else smeared all over their faces.
But we want to see more of “his beautiful blue eyes and angelic face” that “would melt the hearts of most who met him”.
We want the adrenaline rush of horror. Sky shows its readers “Baby P Death Videos”.
Go, on take a look, if you dare to. You need to know what’s going on.
Posted: 15th, November 2008 | In: Key Posts, Media | Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed:RSS 2.0
Comments
November 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The nonsense of keeping children with their families, who are harming them, must stop.
Children are removed to a place of safety.
Govt targets for these depts are dropped as is all irrelevant paperwork.
And the ‘do gooders’ are made to understand that sadistic parents are sadists first and foremost, and become parents to just achieve a victim.
And human nature is what it is
November 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
…… and the Childrens Act reworked. It really is this Act that causes immense problems to all the services. It is a badly thought out piece of legislation but is an Act of Parliament that has to be abided by. Crap IMO.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Just found this snippet too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3462109/Child-protection-register-missed-more-than-80-per-cent-of-serious-child-abuse-cases.html
November 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yes June. And of course there’s the young mother with recognised Mental Health problems and two small babies who wasn’t properly monitored despite having the children with her.
Crazy situation.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Well, she seems also to have had unrecognised mental health problems insofar as torture is not usually a feature of psychiatric conditions.
And I wouldn’t call someone who is 27 young.
It is interesting that Shoesmith is mounting the McCann defence; don’t blame them because it’s all someone else’s fault….
November 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Chenier… I was talking about the 21 year old who stabbed her two babies to death and has now been detained under the MH Act.. She had recognised problems………. horses and barn doors spring to mind again.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Thank you, C&C..
Psychiatric services are notoriously overstretched; too many patients not enough staff, but I agree that sectioning her before the event would have saved those lives. I wonder whether they will set up an inquiry into that…
November 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Someone I knew fostered two young children, their mother was a druggie, she had sold everything in the house, carpets kids toys and the lot.
Social services rehoused the woman provided new carpets new furniture kids toys, the lot.
The Foster parent told the social workers that the same thing would happen again but they quite agressively insisted the children belonged with their mother. Just one week later exactly the same thing happened everything (all brand new) was sold, including all the childrens new toys.
SS asked these lovely dedicated foster parents to have the children back, but for the sake of their sanity they had to refuse.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I’m not really surprised; I have nothing but admiration for people willing to be foster parents caring for children who, by definition, have been deprived of a safe and secure home. It does seem that they are viewed as permanent second class citizens, never as good as ‘real’ parents, when the ‘real’ parents are the problem…
November 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
chenier Says:
November 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I’m not really surprised; I have nothing but admiration for people willing to be foster parents caring for children who, by definition, have been deprived of a safe and secure home. It does seem that they are viewed as permanent second class citizens, never as good as ‘real’ parents, when the ‘real’ parents are the problem…
***********************
After a few weeks with the foster parents they were lovely children,it broke their hearts to have to say No! to having them back. Foster parents are taken advantage of!
November 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I think that the prevailing assumption that children are always better off with their blood relatives is the pendulum swing away from the preceding assumption that you could fix things by taking children from broken parents and putting them in a children’s home.
Reality is that broken children might not be fixed by a children’s home, or the finest foster parents, but they are far less likely to be killed.
Which brings us back to the belief that children are items of property, not people, and the acreage of media comment on abducted children being ’stolen’ from their parents, as if they were an expensive watch or a Vuitton handbag.
The media’s obsession with paedophilia has been a very useful smoke screen for those parents who enjoy torturing children…
November 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
So this was in fact a “young boy” who would have been fully aware of the dreadful abuse and barbaric torture that he was forced to endure!
November 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Tragically, the child would have felt a great deal of pain, both physical and emotional; torture leaves invisible as well as visible scars.
It seems to be yet another example of group-think, where people take little or no evidence on board in arriving at a conclusion but are re-inforced by all the others in the group doing the same thing. So the child protection team decided, on bugger all evidence, that she was an incompetent mother rather than a bad person, and everything flowed from that.
A bit like the intelligence agencies who convinced themselves, on bugger all evidence, that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the economists who convinced themselves that the Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction were a wonderfully good idea, on evidence which pointed in completely the opposite direction…
November 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
…and foster parents (like adoptive parents) have to jump through hoops to be allowed to foster and then have to be almost subservient to be allowed to continue!
IMO the best way to resolve the crisis in Social Services would be to recruit and train an army of middle-aged mums who understand the reality of parenting rather than just knowing the theory.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
coolandcalm Says:
November 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
IMO the best way to resolve the crisis in Social Services would be to recruit and train an army of middle-aged mums who understand the reality of parenting rather than just knowing the theory.
******************
The young social workers can’t get in to the premises in a lot of the abuse cases, because they themselves are intimidated. I bet this means they are unable to report the facts properly in many such cases, as they might be viewed as failing.
I do wonder if this then leaves them with the only option which is to bully the more compliant mothers, who are otherwise just in need of some help and advice.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Neighbours of our have been fostering for a number of years, and they have adopted two of the children, both of whom were born to junkie mothers, and left harmed by that. One of the mothers was a flaming nuisance, and eventually they had to take legal action to prevent her appearing as it was mainly to get money for more drugs. A couple of times things of value were taken from the house and the child returned (after breaks with Mum) in dirty old clothing.
They tried fostering a boy who had been subjected to awful sexual abuse from his father,but the presence of 3 grown sons and the husband in the house made it all worse.
On the whole they do a brilliant job, and are one lucky star in an otherwise unlucky existence - thats for all foster parents not just my neighbours.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Posting submitted by Matt about the timelines of events of Baby P
376.
Timeline and Catalogue of Baby P’s short life and dreadful sufferings :
Absolutely horrific.
Tinyurl links to Sky News…
http://tinyurl.com/6gw8f6
“Here is the timeline of the toddler’s brief and tragic life, based on the available records.
1 March, 2006: Baby P is born. He lives with his father and mother in Haringey, north London.
2 May 2006: Baby P makes first visit to GP suffering from vomiting. He returns on May 26 with a similar complaint.
June 2006: The mother meets her new partner at a pub.
17 July 2006: The baby’s father leaves the home in Haringey.
19 September 2006: Mother takes Baby P to his GP with nappy rash but also claims that he ‘bruises easily’ and is worried that she might be accused of child abuse.
13 October 2006: Baby P, now eight months old, returns to GP with bruising on the side of his head and chest. Mother claims he had fallen down the stairs.
17 November 2006: Baby P taken to GP with a respiratory tract infection and thrush.
November / December 2006: The 32-year-old boyfriend moves into the family home in November or December.
11 December 2006: Baby P is taken to his GP with a head injury, bruising to the bridge of the nose, sternum, right shoulder and buttocks. Mother ‘flustered’ and cannot give an explanation. Baby referred to the Paediatric Department at the Whittington Hospital for skeletal scan and blood clotting tests. Mother claims Baby P has fallen off the settee and been scratched by the dog. Baby P referred to Social Services.
12 December 2006: Haringey Social Services strategy meeting considers baby’s case.
15 December 2006: Baby P discharged from hospital into the care of mother’s friend Angela Godfrey. Police investigation begins.
19 December 2006: Mother and Grandmother of Baby P arrested for assaulting child and bailed to return on January 11, 2007.
22 December 2006: Baby P’s name placed on the Haringey Child Protection Register for neglect and physical abuse.
24 December 2006: Social services make five-minute visit to check on family friend and the baby.
26 January 2007: Baby P returns to care of mother. She is still on bail for assaulting the child.
2 February: Maria Ward is appointed Baby P’s allocated social worker.
February 2007: Family are moved to a bigger council home in north London with mother’s new partner.
22 February 2007: Allocated social worker Maria Ward makes first visit to the new house. Mother complains about baby’s name going on the Register. She denies causing the bruising.
2 March 2007: Second visit by social worker, together with health visitor Paulette Thomas, the day after Baby P’s first birthday. Maria Ward sees the child butting the floor and refers him to the Child Development Centre. The mother admits ‘taking her eye off the ball’ after her separation but claims to be back on track.
8 March 2007: Arranged visit by social worker Maria Ward. Baby P seen banging his head on the sofa.
13 March 2007: Social worker Maria Ward alerted by mother’s husband she may be living with a new boyfriend. The mother strongly denies the claims, saying he is just a friend who sometimes helps around the house.
15 March 2007: Mother starts weekly ‘Mellow Parenting’ programme. Mother cancels appointment with Health Visitor.
22 March 2007: Social worker notices baby has a red mark on the side of his chin. Mother claims he bumped into a side table at her friend’s home. Health visitor Paulette Thomas completes a one-year check and reports ‘no concerns.’
7 April 2007: Baby P seen by a family friend sitting in the garden eating dirt with a large bruise on his forehead. He is very quiet and withdrawn.
9 April 2007: Mother takes Baby P to North Middlesex Hospital with a large swelling and bruising on the left side of his head and a small bruise on his right cheek. Mother claims he was pushed over by an 18 month-old child and hit his head on a marble fireplace the previous Thursday, April 5. Baby P also has bruising around the eyes, scratches to his face and earlobe and head lice. The CT scan was normal. Social Services informed but make diagnosis of possible meningitis. Mother is heard boasting that her son has meningitis. Social services provide the family with a fireguard.
11 April 2007: Baby P discharged home.
24 April 2007: Social worker Maria Ward visits and has ‘no concerns.’
9 May 2007: Health visitor Paulette Thomas visits the family at home.
10 May 2007: Mother does not attend Mellow Parenting Class.
16 May 2007: Maria Lockhart, Haringey project worker visits reports no problems.
18 May 2007: Baby P taken to the GP suffering from hives and prescribed antihistamine.
21 May 2007: Social worker visits the home, no apparent problems.
24 May 2007: Mother does not attend Mellow Parenting Class.
29 May 2007: Baby P not taken to appointment at the Health Visitors’ centre at the Lordship Lane Clinic.
31 May 2007: Mother does not attend Mellow Parenting Class.
1 June 2007: Baby P, now 15 months old, is visited unannounced by social worker Maria Ward. He is lying on the sofa under a blanket. His face is red with some bruising under the chin and a red line under his eye. Mother claims that the baby has been in a fight with the 18 month-old child. The social workers informs the police and tells the mother to see the GP. The boy is taken to the North Middlesex hospital and is noticed to have 12 areas of bruising. Mother worried the baby may be taken away but social services arrange for a family friend to supervise the baby’s care.
5 June 2007: Mother is arrested for a second time and questioned by police. She claims she is a ‘damn good mum.’
6 June 2007: Baby P brought to Lordship Lane health clinic. Health visitor Paulette Thomas notes he has lost weight since March and sees scabs on his head. Mother claims baby had an allergic reaction.
8 June 2007: Photographs are taken of Baby P during a visit to his home by the police child protection team. He appears to have a bruise at the centre of his spine.
12 June 2007: Child minder Ann Walker notices a weeping and bleeding sore on Baby P’s head. The child is often unwashed, smells of vomit and always seems to be hungry.
15 June 2007: The childminder tells social services of a bruise on the boy’s chin but it is decided it is a pre-existing injury.
19 June 2007: Social worker visits Baby P at childminder’s home and sees scratches on his scalp. Mother takes him to North Middlesex hospital for treatment to scratches on his ear and scalp. She claims he had an allergic reaction after eating Red Leicester cheese.
28 June 2007: Mother tells social worker Maria Ward over the phone she is going away the next day for her birthday.
29 June 2007: Jason Owen moves into the home with the 15 year-old runaway girl. Maria Ward tries to contact the mother but fails.
2 July 2007: Maria Ward contacts mother and is told they are at her seriously ill uncle’s in Cricklewood. It is thought this was a cover story because Baby P had a black eye.
4 July 2007: Health visitor unable to contact mother but leaves message on phone.
9 July 2007: Baby P taken to walk-in clinic at North Middlesex hospital to get antibiotics for ear and scalp infections. Mother cancels appointment with health visitor.
10 July 2007: A police meeting leads expert to agree that the injuries to Baby P in December 2006 are ’suggestive of non accidental injury but non conclusive.’
11 July 2007: Social worker visits family and notes ear and scalp infection.
16 July 2007: Mother cancels appointment with health visitor.
18 July 2007: Baby P examined by health visitor Paulette Thomas and found to have again lost weight. Continues to suffer from scalp infection. Bruising also noted around ear. Mother claims it was caused when she was trying to clean his ear.
19 July 2007: Baby P taken to walk-in clinic at North Middlesex Hospital. He has an ear infection and swelling, and a nail infection to right hand. Antibiotics prescribed.
23 July 2007: Appointment for Baby P at the Child Development Centre at St Anne’s Hospital is cancelled.
24 July 2007: Childminder informs social worker she cannot look after Baby P because of the scalp infection. Maria Ward phones the mother and tells her to go to a GP. Mother fails to turn up for appointment with Health Visitor and claims she forgot.
26 July 2007: Mother takes baby to GP. Baby P is withdrawn and pulls away from doctor during examination. GP prescribes anti-bacterial cream and makes appointment for August 2.
27 July 2007: Baby P stays overnight with father. Appears to be healthy apart from scalp infection and bandage to finger.
30 July 2007: Maria Ward makes last visit to see Baby P. He was in his buggy and had chocolate smears over his face and hands and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp. They may have been used to obscure the injuries.
31 July 2007: The CPS decide there is insufficient evidence against the mother or the maternal grandmother.
1 August 2007: Baby P taken to the Child Development Centre at St Anne’s Hospital following two previous cancelled appointments. By this time he is probably suffering from fractured ribs and a broken back, paralysing him from the waist down. Doctor Sabah Alzayyat noted bruises to body and face but does not carry out full examination because he was ‘miserable and cranky.’ In evidence she insists that the boy was moving his legs - something she had never mentioned before. Mother cancels appointment with Heath Visitor.
2 August 2007: Mother decides not to take baby to the GP. Social worker Maria Ward agrees, as boy was seen by Paediatrician previous day. At a meeting with police and social services the mother is told that police would be taking no further action about the assault. She cries with relief and says she will go back and give him a big hug and bake a cake.
3 August 2007: 1.10am: Mother chats to friend over the phone and says the kids are ‘fine.’
11.35am: The 999 call is made. Baby P taken to hospital but pronounced dead on arrival”
November 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The extent to which young social workers can be intimidated by their clients is one of the flaws in the system; admit it and be censured for it, or lie and hope not to be found out. Either way the child who is supposed to be supported is vulnerable to whatever is inflicted on it by their parents and their parents’ friends.
Intimidation of health workers is also widespread, and equally difficult to admit to…
November 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
June
That is a horrendous document; all of those missed chances which might have saved that child.
It seems extraordinary that Haringey could look at that and say that no-one was to blame for allowing those people to carry on torturing that child…
November 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
None so blind as ……
Hopefully the results of the Court case and Cameron’s insistence that this is shocking and shameful on society and cannot be swept under the carpet might introduce some draconian rules that one social worker is not enough, and a young trainee is not qualified to deal with this level of abuse.
Even if a social worker is accompanied by a police officer, the ‘expense’ would be balanced by the saving of a human life, and removing the child to safety would ensure the visit was fruitful and successful. Which surely was the intended point of welfare, and not targets as is currently the point
November 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
June,
Have you seen the reports on the ’social networking’ sites turning vigilante? I think everyone is horrified, up to and including the Prime Minister, who has the bitter gall of having poured vast sums of money into the system to provide resources, only to see yet another easily avoidable terrible tragedy.
I recognise the power of intimidation, but I still think this is a catastrophic example of group-think, whereby the original assumption on bugger all evidence was re-inforced by all the nodding heads
And the head teachers in Haringey rallying to the support of Ms Shoesmith simply reinforces the group-think scenario…
November 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Chenier
The teachers may be impressed by the result achieved by Ms Shoesmith, but I feel the outcry and hopefully a long jail sentence might make them think and and make them realise the very avoidable torture and death of a baby is not something to condone.
Perhaps more caring parents might withhold their children from their supervision?
November 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I suspect that Haringey’s school heads may be operating on unenlightened self-interest; perhaps the thought they might be held to account for something dreadful happening to a school age child is an unconscious motivation.
The maximum sentence is 14 years; I would have thought that all 3 would be at the top end of the range, with the mother getting a tariff reduction for pleading guilty. This is not going to go away, however much Haringey would like it to; they have finally apologised but it is much too little and much too late…
November 15th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
For goodnes sake Anorak. It is not porn, it is abuse and murder.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I think that if you read all 4 pages of his article it becomes clear that Anorak agrees with you, but the way it is presented in the media is closer to pornography than to reportage of a dreadful tragic death of a little child.
How can bright blue eyes and white blonde hair have anything to do with the horrible facts of this case? Are we supposed to believe that a child’s bright blue eyes and white blonde hair make it worse than if the child had brown eyes and curly hair and brown skin?
Because that is the way it is reported; the racism which drove much of the reporting on the McCann case is alive and well and selling newspapers on the back of another tragedy…
November 15th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I have taken the time to read the whole article. This is symptomatic of journalism today. Bandwagons to jump on, agendas to promote. Baby P payed the ultimate price. In an ideal world this would never happen, perhaps the millions poured into rescuing failed financial institustions would be better served to protect those unable to protect themselves.
If a headline highlighting the death of a baby is construed as a way to sell more newspapers then we do indeed live in a sorry world. The fact that Baby P can become a political pawn also speaks volumes. We do indeed live in strange times.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Saul,
Part of the problem is that vast sums of money have been poured into the system; the social workers and healthcare professionals had enough resources to see the child 60 times in a few short months, and they still did not realise that their underlying assumptions were fundamentally flawed.
The creation of a system where everybody gets involved has had the unintended consequence of removing responsibility from individuals; all those nodding heads have created that moral hazard.
And the way the media has covered this is fundamentally flawed, but so what else is new. The abysmal standard of reporting is only too predictable, but disgusting nevertheless…
November 16th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Responsibility? Sharon Shoesmith pilloried. Daughter and many head teachers defend Sharon S. Probably rightly so from the numbers of head teachers supporting. The big however…
60 visits by SS approx. Even if most were unanswered doorbells, you cannot get away from the (reported) fact that there were 60 visits which must have a statistical importance regarding child welfare.
Suggest Freedom of Information request that how many visits are made on average to ‘at risk’ households by the SS? (And exactly what action is subsequently taken if a SS Officer cannot get access or see the child)
It is likely (in my view) that Mrs Goldsmith was hamstrung by bureaucracy, paperwork and limitations of authority. ie. Down again to Government, human rights legislation and the interpretation of, and general lack of involvement. Listen to Any Questions this week.
Sadly and angrily Cosmo
Cosmo
November 16th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I’m a bit baffled by your reference to Mrs Goldsmith; as far as I am aware there was no Goldsmith involved in the case…
November 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Good work mr anorak, good work indeed. Where did your ‘keeping tabs on the tabloids’ jobby go? Never more accurate than now