• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect

    Fook me that's heartbreaking. What's wrong with people? And the services that are supposed to prevent such despair?


    BBC News - Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect, report finds

    Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect, report finds

    20 August 2014 Last updated at 04:37 GMT
    Filthy bedroomBedrooms smelled of urine and animal faeces and contained soiled mattresses
    A three-year-old girl could not walk and had severe nappy rash requiring hospital treatment as agencies underestimated neglect, a report says.

    Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board's serious case review follows her parents being jailed for neglect.

    The report focuses on the couple's four youngest children who had head lice, weak bones and other health problems.

    It has concluded neglect needs to be treated as seriously as sexual and physical abuse by authorities.

    'Lack of action'
    David McCallum, chair of Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board said: "With neglect it's more a question of cumulative lack of action, and lack of support of the children that is adversely affecting them and that makes it difficult to assess the significance of what's happening.

    “Start Quote
    the parents were not acting on that help and they were still allowing their children to be neglected”
    David McCallum, Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board
    "It is also about making decisions of whether you can support the parents to reach the standard of care the children require or whether they have to be removed."

    The girl's admission to hospital for severe nappy rash sparked the police investigation.

    The four children have now been taken into care or been placed with family members.

    The couple, who cannot be named, were labelled "inadequate, stupid, stubborn and reckless" by a judge at Gloucester Crown Court.

    Filthy kitchenThe house was in an unhygienic state and had flea infestations
    Another area highlighted was how authorities were manipulated and played off against each other by the couple.

    "Actually the parents were not acting on that help and they were still allowing their children to be neglected whilst sometimes taking deliberate action to deceive professionals about the level of that neglect," added Mr McCallum.

    The house was untidy, dirty, smelled of faeces and urine and was also flea-infested.

    The family had been known for 16 years to doctors, teachers, police and social workers.

    During that time there were numerous visits to GPs and complaints from teachers and health workers to social services about the state of the children.
    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

    #2
    Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
    Fook me that's heartbreaking. What's wrong with people? And the services that are supposed to prevent such despair?


    BBC News - Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect, report finds
    So, has Suity lost his kids then?
    What happens in General, stays in General.
    You know what they say about assumptions!

    Comment


      #3
      The family had been known for 16 years to doctors, teachers, police and social workers.
      During that time there were numerous visits to GPs and complaints from teachers and health workers to social services about the state of the children.


      Should had sterilised them years ago

      Comment


        #4
        It seems that more and more the various social services and support agencies are unable to do much due to red tape etc etc

        However I think it is as much to do woth people jumping on that gravy train and not wanting to change anything as it is easy money.

        Not sure if you remeber the Baby P case but the director of whatever social services should have done something was sacked over it.

        She then tried to sue for infair dismissal - not sure if she got anywhere.

        So sadly the people that possibly could change the system to stop this happening don't.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by original PM View Post

          She then tried to sue for infair dismissal - not sure if she got anywhere.
          She did.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
            She did.
            And it turns out she was unfairly dismissed and was awarded £680,000 in compensation. The then Education Secretary Ed Balls, under pressure from the press to "do something", arbitrarily dismissed her, even though he had no authority to do so and without going through the correct procedures.
            I'm Spartacus.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              And it turns out she was unfairly dismissed and was awarded £680,000 in compensation. The then Education Secretary Ed Balls, under pressure from the press to "do something", arbitrarily dismissed her, even though he had no authority to do so and without going through the correct procedures.
              But was she? the staff under her control did nothing for a long period of time to prevent the death of Baby P when they could have done.

              If she is responsible for those staff and is paid a fair wedge for that responsibility then when the tulip hits the fan she is the one held responsible.

              And if it not her fault then whose is it - or is it just that the system does not work?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by original PM View Post
                But was she? the staff under her control did nothing for a long period of time to prevent the death of Baby P when they could have done.

                If she is responsible for those staff and is paid a fair wedge for that responsibility then when the tulip hits the fan she is the one held responsible.

                And if it not her fault then whose is it - or is it just that the system does not work?
                IIRC (can't be arsed to go and re-read) the issue was that they hadn't gone through the correct process to dismiss her.
                ǝןqqıʍ

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
                  IIRC (can't be arsed to go and re-read) the issue was that they hadn't gone through the correct process to dismiss her.
                  Right. The unfair dismissal tribunal was not there to decide on whether she was or wasn't responsible for failings in her department that led to the death of Baby P, but to rule on whether she was unfairly dismissed. It ruled she was, and that seems to have been the correct ruling.

                  It shouldn't shock anybody that it was a complete frakk-up given that Ed Balls was involved. Ministers can't just arbitrarily fire civil servants because the press is kicking up a stink.
                  I'm Spartacus.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    Right. The unfair dismissal tribunal was not there to decide on whether she was or wasn't responsible for failings in her department that led to the death of Baby P, but to rule on whether she was unfairly dismissed. It ruled she was, and that seems to have been the correct ruling.

                    It shouldn't shock anybody that it was a complete frakk-up given that Ed Balls was involved. Ministers can't just arbitrarily fire civil servants because the press is kicking up a stink.
                    they could of course restricted the compensation.

                    but it was a balls up.
                    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X