RALLY FOR THE CHILDREN OF HARINGEY

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 16, 2008 at 13:37

I ALSO agree that it is not appropriate to make political capital out of this dreadful event. The death of this infant transcends all party politics. I am not a supporter of David Cameron's party, but I do not think he was trying to make a party political point when he properly raised this case at the dispatch box at last Wednesday's PMQs. That his questions and concerns were interpreted in this way was regrettable.

The most important things now are to reduce the chances of this happening again and to find out if the death of baby P was allowed to happen because some of the 100+ recommendations of Lord Laming's Victoria Climbie enquiry were not implemented. And if this proves to be the case, to hold accountable those responsible.

After Victoria Climbie, I'm sure many people thought it must never be allowed to happen again. Haringey has previous form in this area and we the citizens should do what we can to try to make sure that Haringey does not allow it to happen yet again. It is either the wrong policies, the wrong personnel, or both.

The three individuals who were most directly involved in the death of the baby were not charged with murder, but with allowing baby P to die. How is this charge different – in logic – from the position of Haringey Children's services?

If a company is reckless and careless in the field of Health (and Safety) in a workplace, which leads to the death of a worker, they can be charged with Corporate Manslaughter under the new Act. Are council's to be held to a lessor standard when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable and most defenceless?

The MP for Hornsey and Wood Green has said that she has no confidence in the Ofsted investigation. An Ofsted report written by Sharon Shoesmith's former employee Juliet Winstanley heaped praise on her former boss's work – at about the time of the death of baby P.

Yesterday's letter in support of Sharon Shoesmith from 60 local head teachers does not impress me as this is not their field. I would rather hear what the former Haringey social worker Nevres Kemal has to say. Unlike the Haringey teachers, Ms Kemal is currently subject to a court injunction obtained by the council, preventing her from speaking - from her more authoritative and knowlegable position.

I intend to protest and would urge others to examine their consciences as council tax-payers, residents, citizens and human beings.

Permalink Reply by DavidJ on November 17, 2008 at 14:42

"The most important things now are to reduce the chances of this happening again . . ."

I agree with this bit. There needs to a proper and very sober enquiry.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 17, 2008 at 16:07

David I believe there are four separate enquiries ongoing. Of the four Enquiries, the Ofsted enquiry seems to be the most compromised. Before the death of the baby, Ofsted gave a good report about Haringey Children's services and at about the time of the death of Baby P, supplied an ever better report.

One or both of these reports were written someone who had worked at Haringey (under Sharon Shoesmith).

Any marked deviation from those earlier conclusions will inevitably lead to questions. So in order to be consistent (if for no other reason), Ofsted may feel obliged to say things are satisfactory. I hope to be proven wrong.

The so-called whistle-blower (who appears to have been doing no more than her job, conscientiously) needs to have the injunction lifted from her so we can all judge what she has to say. That's the injunction granted to Haringey Council lawyers to silence her.

The enquiry that may offer the most hope, is the one by Lord Laming (of the Victoria Climbie enquiry) who can test to see how many of his recommendations were followed in this case. Perhaps no one is better placed to perform a proper and sober enquiry.

After Victoria Climbie, people wanted to reduce the chances of this happening again. No senior staff resigned then and one social worker at the bottom of the heap was made the scape-goat. This time there must be real action that addresses the cause of these problems and that will almost certainly include sackings or resignations.

Permalink Reply by Stuart on November 17, 2008 at 16:08

"The most important things now are to reduce the chances of this happening again and to find out if the death of baby P was allowed to happen because some of the 100+ recommendations of Lord Laming's Victoria Climbie enquiry were not implemented. And if this proves to be the case, to hold accountable those responsible."

I agree. So why are we not waiting until we have had a full enquiry, and determined which, if any of Lord Laming's recommendations were not implemented? And who, if anyone, should personally be blamed.

Personally, I think it's shameful that there is a medieval witch hunt on for people to be blamed and burned for this tragedy based purely on press reporting of the case (which I know for a fact is woefully inaccurate as my best mate's Dad was one of the defending barristers). See for example the Sun today. Child protection is a hugely complex and difficult area requiring excellence and co-ordination (as well as terrifyingly fine judgments) across many different professional disciplines. A bit of understanding of that, and standing back to look at the system as a whole, would produce far more beneficial results than a herd-like policy of naming of shaming (particularly for a council like Haringey which operates in one of the more deprived parts of the UK). Screaming about "blatant incompetence" before a proper enquiry has proved that just shows exactly why professions like social services, children's services etc. are so chronically under-staffed (and poorly staffed). Who'd want a job like that when your professional judgment can lead to you being door-stepped by the Sun. And as for shouting about how Haringey should have acted quicker, don't people remember what happened in Orkney? In Cleveland? We are heading right down that road again.

One other small point: I'm not sure I understand why child protection is not the field of Head Teachers. My wife's a school nurse and they (and teachers including heads) are at the forefront of providing a joined up effective children's service. They're often the first ones to have to engage with social services/the police/doctors. So I think it's hugely impressive that so many heads had such strong words of support.

Lastly, I have no vested interest (personal or professional) in this case. I just think the current climate of media reaction (mirrored in HOL just now) is perilously close to the hysteria which led to paediatricians being attacked as "paedophiles" thanks to the News of the World campaign a few years ago.

Permalink Reply by Stuart on November 17, 2008 at 16:55

And I would just add that the following is an essential read for anyone whose emotions have been inflamed by what they've read in the press in the last week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/13/childprotection-climb...

Permalink Reply by Liz on November 17, 2008 at 17:20

On your small point Bushey first. Teachers are heavily involved in child protection once the child reaches nursery age but any child under 3 is of course harder to reach except through health professionals. Incidentally, not so long I posted about the chronic shortage of health visitors, the cutting back of this service and the fears that the service had for children in the borough. Where once you could see a health visitor twice a week in a small clinic, suddenly your only opportunity was once a month in an overfilled baby clinic. Of course, working under this kind of pressure they may begin to miss things that once they were able to pick up.

Social workers do do a difficult job and the profession has problems with image, I do appreciate that, but I do believe that should not mean they are not accountable when something very bad happens. The fact that they work in a difficult borough should not mean that we are prevented from questioning what is going on when an appalling case like this emerges.

On the wider issue, I really think that it is unfair to suggest that the people who are posting on here asking for some accountability are being hysterical and equating it with the NoTW fiasco. While I appreciate your point about waiting for an inquiry, let us not forget that we have been here with Victoria Climbie. We were assured that it could not happen again, that a service could fail so badly to protect a child. And yet here we are. Surely you understand people's anger?

The wider problem seems to be that we veer from the mentality that takes every child with a bruise on them into care to one where the rights of the family become paramount. One minute there is satanic abuse, the next every mother is a saint who just needs a parenting course to make it okay. It is a sad fact that children are killed every week by parents/ carers and we cannot hold anyone but the parents ultimately responsible for that but in this case, with so many people involved and with such a degree of violence inflicted, I'm afraid someone has to take a long hard look at this, be honest with the public and take the hard decisions about who should be held responsible for this failure of the system.
I hope Lord Laming will do so.

Permalink Reply by DavidJ on November 17, 2008 at 17:59

"I'm afraid someone has to take a long hard look at this, be honest with the public and take the hard decisions about who should be held responsible for this failure of the system."

Liz - exactly this is the point. It is an extremely complicated issue. Before this happens it seems wrong to be blaming people.

Just as an example of the complexity here - I know social workers who think that the Laming report is part of the problem in that great stress was put on the documentation of cases and the audit of that documentation. Meanwhile too little attention was given to the very tricky area about how to make judgements about who or who isn't an acceptable parent; nor to the connected (yet highly political) problem of what alternatives there are for those children who are removed from those familes.

Meanwhile on the back of public anger social workers get death threats and are driven from their homes and their children have to change schools . . .

Permalink Reply by Stuart on November 17, 2008 at 18:24

Couldn't agree more. Thank you David for reassuring me that the entire world has not gone mad. And for goodness sake don't (as I foolishly did) read the Sun today where they are printing photos and personal details of all the people they believe should be sacked (most of whom, as you say, will now have to go into hiding). The fact it's Haringey has also given the tabloid press a chance to wheel out the usual anti-liberal prejudices about equality of rights etc. being to blame (see, e.g. Trevor Kavanagh's column today).

Permalink Reply by Liz on November 17, 2008 at 18:42

On your last point David, I had not heard this was happening. Is this something you have come across personally? I am very uncomfortable with the idea of rallies etc and for this reason I will not be going to the event that prompted this discussion. Bushey, I would never support a witch hunt, nor am I mad and I have not gone near a copy of the Sun. I appear to be reading the same publications as you, the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC website. My conclusions on this are simply different from yours, partly based also on 16 years working with children in very deprived areas including Leicester which has some of the most 'Dickensian' poverty stricken areas in the country. There are problems in the system and we cannot ignore them.

I have to say also that I do understand why people feel angry. The bare facts of the case alone of course 'inflame my emotions'. You would have to be very dispassionate indeed not to feel strong emotions at what happened to this child. I have to say I also sympathise with those who are angry at the council because we all waited like good people, we accepted the inquiry findings, we were assured that this borough would be an exemplar. It was given high ratings by official bodies, and yet a defenceless child is left in the hands of sadists for months. We are confused and we want answers and if we get the same ones as last time, why should we believe them?

On your last points, about the professional judgements and alternatives to the 'family'. We have made a great mistake in equating care with the worst possible outcome. I knew through my work a fair few children who were in the care system. There are many fine foster parents, workers in care homes and social workers who helped those children through some very difficult times. Those who failed in the system came with enormous problems late into the system.

I also fear there has been too much idealogy attached to the safeguarding of children and too little attention given to trusting people's professional instincts even if that doesn't sit well with whatever orthodoxy is prevailing at the time.

Look, I want to believe that such an appalling case won't happen again, I want to believe that the people at the top feel responsible and sorry for what has happened. I need to hope that lessons will be learned and I would like to see someone have to have the grace to take responsibilty at the top to prevent the further hounding of those at the bottom, but the way it stands at the moment I can't dare to hope for any of these things.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 17, 2008 at 22:50

We have heard much about the danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way, i.e. of too many children being put into care and not enough left with so-called "families". But surely every case needs to be assessed on its own merits and there should be no general expectation of either taking children away from abusive parents, or of leaving them with abusive parents.

The BBC's Panorama documentary this evening seemed to show that the social workers on the sharp end were, by and large, trying to do the right thing - but were overruled by their council managers. This is where we get to policy at the higher level and that irksome business of accountability.

It appears that this case is another example of Haringey - in the form of elected individuals - failing to take responsibility for serious things that have gone wrong. The concept of responsibility seems alien to the council: we see it in many areas of council activity, such as the tendency to hire (expensive) outside consultants.

As for media coverage: we should expect either no or partial comment on this subject from the council's Haringey People magazine: we should be grateful for a free press, something that doesn't exist in totalitarian regimes.

The apology last week by Councillor Liz Santry (Cabinet Member for Children) appeared to me to be late, forced and detached if not insincere.

Having watched Panorama this evening, a friend suggested that a Witch Hunt (i.e. alternatively, holding people responsible for their actions or inactions) was exactly what was needed: and a full clean out of the coven, at that. The apologists for Haringey had their way after Victoria Climbie. Will the council again seek to pin blame on a low level worker? Will this council escape accountability and responsibility again?

As an aside, in a recent 24 month period at Alexandra Palace, our Council set fire to nearly £800,000 on two firms of lawyers in a misguided attempt to flog our charity's asset to a property developer. That legal bill alone would have paid for 200 Child Court Protection Orders, even at the increased price.

Permalink Reply by Anette on November 16, 2008 at 13:54

I hope a lot of people turn up for this - we need to express our disgust. Would have been there, but am unfortunately out of the country at that time.

Why is it that Sharon Shoesmith has not offered as much as a muttering of an apology for her department's blatant incompetence? And why has the idiot of a GP who failed to spot a broken spine not been struck off with immediate effect? What is this? It seems as if it is more important do protect the grown ups than it is to protect the children, the children these very same grown ups have failed. Again.

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 19, 2008 at 1:05

THIS evening I witnessed our Council's Leader, George Meehan, apologize over the death of Baby P with all the feeling and emotion of someone returning an overdue library book. One account of this apology can be seen here.

It has been suggested that the council has retained a PR company whose single task is to try to protect councillors from blame. If this is true, its a pity the monies involved couldn't have gone some time ago towards a Child Protection Order.

Is the first evidence of PR work to be found in Meehan's apology where he highlighted the failure of "all the agencies involved". Other agencies can speak for themselves, but perhaps the Police have less reason to apologise than other agencies, as they appeared to try to excercise common sense. Who had primary responsibility? When will the buck-passing end?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page