My recent post on the behaviour of the media seems very apposite in view of the baby P case.
It is a tragic case and it may well be that an enquiry will reveal failings. It may also result in disciplinary action, sackings or resignations. None of that justifies the press hounding of social workers in the way that is now happening. Even the Today programme slipped into witch hunt mode with the presenter saying ‘a child has died surely someone must take responsibility’. Well, yes but that somebody has to be the person who killed – not people who were trying to help even if mistakes were made. Unusually it was John Humphries who said this – perhaps the press frenzy is catching!
Social workers may have to take responsibility for mistakes but not for the death of the child. Alas, we will never stop this type of killing entirely. We do need to learn from mistakes but we should not demonise social workers.
The Mail group of newspapers were particularly vindictive. They showed a photograph of Sharon Shoesmith and said “This is Sharon Shoesmith the beleaguered head of children’s services at Haringey council enjoying herself at Ascot racecourse in the weeks after the death of baby P.” Note that it is “weeks” after. How many? Two? Ten? Twenty?
They have also been trying to get information and pictures of her and other members of her family. All of this just one week after the editor of the Daily Mail and chairman of the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct committee Paul Dacre lectured us on morality!
Are we really saying the pursuit of people in this fashion is fair play? I don’t think so.
What do you think?
Without knowing all the facts of the case it is difficult to make any comment. I find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that any adult could treat a child that cannot defend itself, like this, in the same way I find it difficult to accept that 60 visits were made to the House by social workers and no one appeared to notice anything wrong.
Perhaps I am out of touch, but why exactly were they making so many visits in the first place? Who wanted them to visit, and were reports made of the visits? Did the people that visit have enough experience? Did they know what signs to look for?
However, there used to be Welfare nurses, or district nurses years ago that turned up at people’s homes to make sure “mothers” were coping, and the children were healthy and being looked after as they should be. Putting chocolate on a child’s face to hide bruises would never have been acceptable to the people in those days. The Mother would have had to bath the child in front of the ‘nurse’.
At one time, Social Workers had to apply to Juvenile Court for certain actions to be taken, did this case ever get that far? Or has court been ruled out these days?
Such as this case was never supposed to happen again, it has, and that has to be faced. As regards publicity, to a certain extent the papers are reflecting how many people feel at the horror, the terrible torture, the pain that Baby P must have endured at the hands of those that should have protected and cared for such an innocent defenceless child
Could not agree more.
I couldn’t agree more. Ironically, I find that the same people who often protest at supposed inaction or incompetence by government (in this case social services) are usually also the first to protest against the ‘nanny state’, or any increase in taxes to better fund the public services they berate.
The sad fact is that little sells tabloid newspapers faster than blaming the government for something, especially if they can slap the ‘Big Brother’ label on it to stir up their readership, most of whom have never even read “1984”.
As for John Humphries, I fear he seems to have developed a taste for outrageously trite questions recently, which is one reason I don’t listen to the Today programme as much as I used to.
Sorry to be pedantic but the Today presenter’s name is John Humphrys.
I agree that simply looking for one or two ‘scapegoats’ is not enough. However, people in charge do need to ‘carry the can’ when something goes wrong – the buck has to stop with someone.
I note that many teachers appeared to have rallied to the cause of Sharon Shoesmith. That is fair enough, but I would ask the question whether the fact that she was considered effective on the ‘Ofsted’ side of her job necessarily means she was also doing an effective job on the ‘child care’ side.
Indeed, the question of whether such two different ‘hats’ should be worn by the same person seems an important one for the review. Or would ‘splitting’ the roles lead to a ‘silo mentality’.
I think the Haringey Social Services dept needs to be reinvented with a blank sheet of paper has looked at, in my amateur opinion, at least the following..
Major factors
– Understand the culture which has led to a 25% vacancy rate for social workers. Is this down to poor training, low morale, London house prices, perceived desirability of other jobs with less stress.
– Is there enough money available ? Does funding follow cases or is it a blanket amount regardless of the number of cases identified.
– Is there a culture of ‘meetings for meetings’ sake, rather than a JFDI approach to ‘getting things done’.
– Communication – are cases handed over properly – are concerns listened to and problems escalated properly ?
– Do cases ‘fall between the cracks’ when handed over between departments ?
– Is record keeping or technology hampering effective knowledge of which children are ‘at risk’ ?
– Are staff being bullied, threatened or even assaulted by problem cases ? Do they get the support and back-up they need ?
Minor factors
Does the fragmentation of society mean ‘good neighbours’ are fewer in number ?
– Is there a culture of ‘look the other way – I may misunderstand the situation’ among the general public ?
– Is there a ‘conspiracy of silence’ among, say, the police if they receive reports of domestic violence due to the far-reaching impacts on careers if they make false / unfounded allegations or even arrests ?
– Do child care professionals [including teachers] avoid getting too involved when there are concerns over child welfare due to the stigma if they are accused of ‘interfering’ with young children.
The tabloids would be incandescent with rage if social workers were taking children away from their parents when they had injuries, if there was any risk at all that there was an innocent explanation.
God knows what was going on in this case with the social workers and police. I am quite prepared to believe that there was incompetence and worse, but I certainly don’t trust the tabloids to tell me.
Could someone please explain why 4 seperate enquiries are needed?
( Though admittidly Lord Laming’s review is national in scope.)
Wouldn’t 1 comprehensive external one be better than 4, each looking at seperate aspects of the case?
It does seem that a lack of communication / co-ordination between the different agencies involved could be a contributory factor – so holding 1 enqury would enable all the different bits to come together, as it were.
I studied social policy as half my degree at the University of York, and it compleately put me off the idea of being a social worker.
In my opinion, front line social workers do not have the tools and support they need to do their job properly. I’m also not sure what could be done to solve this problem.
If I remember correctly, most social workers spend less than 5 years in the profession – becuase it is so stressful (I am citing from memory here, so treat this claim with a pinch of salt).
Anne made a good point. It’s hard to see what truely is going on without seeing all the facts. The childcare agencies should have seen the signs- why didn’t they? I mean, the boy is all bruised up, how can you miss something like that?
My heart goes out for a sweet baby P. 🙁