The case of "baby p"

[Houchy]

I have just read this story in all it's detail and it's absolutely disgusting the way this has been handled from beginning to grisly end. Absolutely everyone should have the book thrown at them especially that friggin "doctor" that failed to notice the baby was paralised through a broken spine as it was "cranky" (My smillies aren't working so Grr x10). She should be struck off with immediate effect.

The Social workers should also all be sacked for their lack of involvement. This case is just so negligent on sooo many levels. **** ridiculous what that toddler went through. (Grr)

[mickeythehibbee]

I have just read this story in all it's detail and it's absolutely disgusting the way this has been handled from beginning to grisly end. Absolutely everyone should have the book thrown at them especially that friggin "doctor" that failed to notice the baby was paralised through a broken spine as it was "cranky" (My smillies aren't working so Grr x10). She should be struck off with immediate effect.

The Social workers should also all be sacked for their lack of involvement. This case is just so negligent on sooo many levels. **** ridiculous what that toddler went through. (Grr)

:agree:

A genuine tragedy but what is really shocking is the actual level of incompetence necessary for the case to reach the point that it did. How stupid do you have to be to not notice injuries on that scale after 60 visits!

It's ridiculous that injuries of that extent were allowed to occur before anyone did anything when they readily take some children into care over relatively minor things.:grr::grr:

Agree that the Doctor was majorly wrong but what's really getting me is the social services head claiming that they were at NO fault in the matter and blaming the doctor alone. Talk about turning a blind eye!!:bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

I have just read this story in all it's detail and it's absolutely disgusting the way this has been handled from beginning to grisly end. Absolutely everyone should have the book thrown at them especially that friggin "doctor" that failed to notice the baby was paralised through a broken spine as it was "cranky" (My smillies aren't working so Grr x10). She should be struck off with immediate effect.

The Social workers should also all be sacked for their lack of involvement. This case is just so negligent on sooo many levels. **** ridiculous what that toddler went through. (Grr) A broken spine along with broken ribs, finger nails torn off and tips of fingers missing. The child was on the child protection register, and the Mother taken into custody twice on charges of neglect. The Police advised Social Services that the child should be taken into care but that didn't happen. My stomach was churning reading the details, poor little soul, God bess you. :boo hoo:

[Nando™]

Could someone post a link to an in-depth story about this? I can't seem to find any decent coverage on it :confused:

[Hibs Class]

That this happened in the same London borough as Victoria Climbie, following whose death an enquiry assured that leasons would be learned so as to prevent the same fate happening to another child, is even more of a disgrace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723042.stm

[Nando™]

That this happened in the same London borough as Victoria Climbie, following whose death an enquiry assured that leasons would be learned so as to prevent the same fate happening to another child, is even more of a disgrace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723042.stm
Cheers :aok:

[Pheona]

The whole thing just breaks my heart. I am at a loss as to what to say about any of it.

[gringojoe]

Yet there is still a debate about the death penalty, hang them and hang them high.

[Tomsk]

I can't even begin to express how distraught I felt when I read this story. Apparently, an average of one child each week is murdered by its parents. That's unacceptable. But it's scandalous that many of these murders involve cases where the parents are under the scrutiny of social services, police and medical professionals. In other words, the system is inadeqaute and has abandoned the child to its fate. This tragedy is yet another example. If it is true that as many as fifty children a year die at the hands of their parents then that figure is too high, but if even one dies when the child has been assessed by social services as at risk then that is one too many. It's an unfashionable thing to say, but there are people who should not be allowed to have children.

However, I don't know as a society if we are prepared to throw the kind of resources and spend the type of money needed to make a real difference. We need a system where the direct interventions from social services are more practical, where care homes are widely available and accessible, where carers are properly remunerated and supported. I don't know if we are prepared to pay for this.

[Future17]

Was unbelievable to hear some of the Social Work "experts" saying the fact that the house had been visited 60 times was proof of how well the system worked. :bitchy:

I could visit a nuclear power station 100 times - doesn't mean I'd be able to stop a potentially fatal problem if I was ****ing incompetent!!

[Nando™]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I would happily murder the people responsible for this as long as nobody found me out.

Controversial? Probably...

[gringojoe]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I would happily murder the people responsible for this as long as nobody found me out.

Controversial? Probably...

It wouldn't be murder it would be doing the country a service.

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I would happily murder the people responsible for this as long as nobody found me out.

Controversial? Probably...

I'd happily give you an alibi :agree:

[Nando™]

It wouldn't be murder it would be doing the country a service.


I'd happily give you an alibi :agree:
Then what are we waiting for!?

[Ed De Gramo]

Then what are we waiting for!?

You'll need to complete a sycle survey beforehand :wink::greengrin

Getting back to the original post.....this is truly disgusting...how could social services not notice????

Hope those barstewards that done this get their commuppance in prison :agree:

[Betty Boop]

According to a guy interviewed on News at Ten the wee angel was being tortured by the lodger, who apparently was testing the bairns "pain threshold". Jeezo what kind of monsters are amongst us in this country! :boo hoo:

[EH6 Hibby]

One of the saddest stories I have ever heard! That poor wee boy, it breaks my heart to think of the pain he must have endured! The bit that disgusts me beyond belief was a witness account of how the stepfather only had to click his fingers and the wee soul would put his head down on the floor because he was so scared of the evil f*****r.
Personally I think they should have done to them what they did to that wee boy, leave them paralized and let them die slowly in agony!

The social workers are a disgrace, I can't believe none of them have had the decency to resign after this! I wouldn't trust them to look after a goldfish! :furious:

[Speedy]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I would happily murder the people responsible for this as long as nobody found me out.

Controversial? Probably...

You could be Edinburgh's Dexter Morgan

[Nando™]

You could be Edinburgh's Dexter Morgan
Ach, he's an amateur :whistle:

[Houchy]

I know it's another paper that we don't like but I'd urge anyone to follow this link to sign the sun's petition to have EVERYONE involved in this case sacked from social workers to the Doctor:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1925012.ece

[Hibrandenburg]

I can never fathom the thoughts of folks who do things like that. I can't believe that anyone would do something like that. Am I missing something here? What can you get out of torturing a wee bairn? I just don't get it.

[--------]

I can never fathom the thoughts of folks who do things like that. I can't believe that anyone would do something like that. Am I missing something here? What can you get out of torturing a wee bairn? I just don't get it.


Cruelty is its own reward, regardless of the target.

Nearly everyone guilty of cruelty against children have a prior history of cruelty to animals. Bullies are turned on by the distress of their victims. And they can always rationalise and justify their cruelty.

"He was asking for it." "She shouldn't be such a snob." "It was only a bit of fun."

60 visits from social services mean absolutely nothing if the social workers concerned don't look in the right places and ask the right questions. This the Harringey people clearly failed to do - again.

It's ironic that a deeply caring couple who have successfully raised their own family will be turned down as foster-parents nowadays if they smoke, yet one child a week dies from because of the cruelty of the adults who are supposed to be caring for him or her.

FWIW, my experience is that social workers will visit "safe" families very frequently, and will be as exhaustive (and obnoxious!) in their questioning as they feel they can get away with - because they know that those "safe" families pose no risk of physical danger to the social worker him/herself.

Any law-abiding family that gets involved with Social Services would be well-advised to go to a lawyer specialising in child law right from the start. Get the right advice from the lawyer and act on it, and let the social workers know you're represented.

(A lot of social workers can enjoy doing a bit of threatening and bullying themselves, and they're not above lying to people to maintain their advantage.)

Bring in the possibility of a violent confrontation with the adults in the house, however, and the visitors are much less likely to ask the important questions. They won't demand to see the child, or insist on being allowed to examine that child themselves. They're likely to arrive at the door; speak to whoever comes to the door; maybe get into the house, maybe not, but whatever happens, that call goes down in the casebook as a "visit".

(The social workers'll be LOOKING for excuses to report that all's well, and as long as the "responsible adults" in the house give them the excuse they're looking for, that's what they'll do.)

Pardon my cynicism, but every now and again I find myself working with these people, and most times I come away feeling very, very uneasy.

[EH6 Hibby]

I would love to know what these Social Workers were thinking, the Police recommnded that Baby Peter be taken into custody and the boys childminder reported at least 5 times that the child was being abused, and every time, the social worker believed the lies the mother fed her about how the injuries were inflicted! Ok, lets assume that the social worker is extremely gullible, and she believes what the "mother" says that he is accident prone, surely she should be questioning why the child is allowed to have these "accidents"

My son is four years old, and when he is with me I barely let him out of my sight, even in the house because it's so easy for him to get hurt, he plays with his toys in living room where I can see him, maybe I am an over protective mother I don't know, but I have a healthy happy son and that's all that matters to me, when he gets older and is able to understand about danger better then I'll allow him out of my sight!

[I'm_cabbaged]

The whole thing just breaks my heart. I am at a loss as to what to say about any of it.


I can never fathom the thoughts of folks who do things like that. I can't believe that anyone would do something like that. Am I missing something here? What can you get out of torturing a wee bairn? I just don't get it.

I just can't understand what goes through peoples heads when they do such horrible things to innocent wee bairns, it's my own sons anniversary tomorrow and it just breaks my heart even more reading things like this.

God bless you Decs.



Yet there is still a debate about the death penalty, hang them and hang them high.

Would be too quick for the *******s. :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Cruelty is its own reward, regardless of the target.

Nearly everyone guilty of cruelty against children have a prior history of cruelty to animals. Bullies are turned on by the distress of their victims. And they can always rationalise and justify their cruelty.

"He was asking for it." "She shouldn't be such a snob." "It was only a bit of fun."

60 visits from social services mean absolutely nothing if the social workers concerned don't look in the right places and ask the right questions. This the Harringey people clearly failed to do - again.

It's ironic that a deeply caring couple who have successfully raised their own family will be turned down as foster-parents nowadays if they smoke, yet one child a week dies from because of the cruelty of the adults who are supposed to be caring for him or her.

FWIW, my experience is that social workers will visit "safe" families very frequently, and will be as exhaustive (and obnoxious!) in their questioning as they feel they can get away with - because they know that those "safe" families pose no risk of physical danger to the social worker him/herself.

Any law-abiding family that gets involved with Social Services would be well-advised to go to a lawyer specialising in child law right from the start. Get the right advice from the lawyer and act on it, and let the social workers know you're represented.

(A lot of social workers can enjoy doing a bit of threatening and bullying themselves, and they're not above lying to people to maintain their advantage.)

Bring in the possibility of a violent confrontation with the adults in the house, however, and the visitors are much less likely to ask the important questions. They won't demand to see the child, or insist on being allowed to examine that child themselves. They're likely to arrive at the door; speak to whoever comes to the door; maybe get into the house, maybe not, but whatever happens, that call goes down in the casebook as a "visit".

(The social workers'll be LOOKING for excuses to report that all's well, and as long as the "responsible adults" in the house give them the excuse they're looking for, that's what they'll do.)

Pardon my cynicism, but every now and again I find myself working with these people, and most times I come away feeling very, very uneasy.

A lot of social workers enjoy being threatening and bullying? How many is that then Doddie? Not letting your personal prejudices get in the way are you?

FWIW my experience is that some church folk have inflicted, harboured, or turned a blind eye to abuse but hey-ho, I'm not going to make crass generalisations about them on that basis.

[RyeSloan]

Firstly I think this is an absolute tragedy and there has plainly been failings in the system.

However Iit's easy to see the headlines about 60 visits etc and direct outrage at the people involved but I think there is a valid point in the fact that this child was on the radar and was being supervised. Of course this baby's life should have been saved but I think it's dangerous to underestimate just how conniving and determined 3 adults in cahoots can be to cover up their evil acts.

A totally shocking case but petiions like the Sun's do absolutely nothing to improve the situation or indeed does Cameron's outburst in the Commons.

[--------]

A lot of social workers enjoy being threatening and bullying? How many is that then Doddie? Not letting your personal prejudices get in the way are you?

FWIW my experience is that some church folk have inflicted, harboured, or turned a blind eye to abuse but hey-ho, I'm not going to make crass generalisations about them on that basis.



That's my experience, based on about 25 years. I'll concede that I should have said SOME rather than A LOT. Otherwise I stand by my experience, and the experience of colleagues and other people I've worked with.

Maybe I've just been unfortunate in the people I've encountered, but some of them would have been welcomed into the Gestapo, the way they conducted themselves.

I would still stand by my surmise that the visitors concerned in the case under discussion very probably were deterred from enquiring too closely into the facts of the case by concern for their own safety.

Some of the same people who backed off from this family would have had no trouble in pressing their enquiries to the point of intrusion in families where they felt secure and in control.

I agree totally about the way church people have connived at and ignored child abuse - that's a matter of public record and I know that over the last 20 years my own denomination has made strenuous efforts to sort things out.

I, and everyone else in my congregation who works with children or teenagers are strictly obliged to communicate any suspicions we have to the relevant authorities. We have very strict guidelines about how we should conduct ourselves with the children. We obey the law in evry detail - if we don't we can be prosecuted. We're under scrutiny from both the secular authorities and the higher courts of the church. Everyone who could possibly come in contact with young people also has to be scrutinised and cleared by the church through the national police computers. If we're working in schools or with local authority bodies, we have to be cleared by them as well - that's entirely as it should be.

Of course, I can't speak for any other individuals or denominations.

The difference between churches and social services is that social services have legal powers which many people don't really understand. I've encountered a number of social workers (usually the more senior ones) who are quite prepared to exploit people's ignorance of the law. Maybe this has changed nowadays, but over the years I have repeatedly encountered a number of people in all parts of Scotland who certainly fit the description you take such exception to.

This is both working as school chaplain and in the wider community.

So no, it's not prejudice I'm showing, but the fruit of hard experience. I say again that people should make use of legal advice and guidance if they have any misgivings about how they're being treated by social services. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who checks up on the folks who are checking up on us?

The tone of your own post might seem to suggest that your own judgement may not be entirely unclouded by prejudice? :cool2:



And BTW: I don't know personally how accurate the figure is, but the strong suggestion that one child a week in the UK dies from the effects of abuse undetected or ignored by social services surely suggests that there's SOMETHING far, far wrong either with the system or with the people concerned?

[Mibbes Aye]

That's my experience, based on about 25 years. I'll concede that I should have said SOME rather than A LOT. Otherwise I stand by my experience, and the experience of colleagues and other people I've worked with.

Maybe I've just been unfortunate in the people I've encountered, but some of them would have been welcomed into the Gestapo, the way they conducted themselves.

I would still stand by my surmise that the visitors concerned in the case under discussion very probably were deterred from enquiring too closely into the facts of the case by concern for their own safety.

Some of the same people who backed off from this family would have had no trouble in pressing their enquiries to the point of intrusion in families where they felt secure and in control.

I agree totally about the way church people have connived at and ignored child abuse - that's a matter of public record and I know that over the last 20 years my own denomination has made strenuous efforts to sort things out.

I, and everyone else in my congregation who works with children or teenagers are strictly obliged to communicate any suspicions we have to the relevant authorities. We have very strict guidelines about how we should conduct ourselves with the children. We obey the law in evry detail - if we don't we can be prosecuted. We're under scrutiny from both the secular authorities and the higher courts of the church. Everyone who could possibly come in contact with young people also has to be scrutinised and cleared by the church through the national police computers. If we're working in schools or with local authority bodies, we have to be cleared by them as well - that's entirely as it should be.

Of course, I can't speak for any other individuals or denominations.

The difference between churches and social services is that social services have legal powers which many people don't really understand. I've encountered a number of social workers (usually the more senior ones) who are quite prepared to exploit people's ignorance of the law. Maybe this has changed nowadays, but over the years I have repeatedly encountered a number of people in all parts of Scotland who certainly fit the description you take such exception to.

This is both working as school chaplain and in the wider community.

So no, it's not prejudice I'm showing, but the fruit of hard experience. I say again that people should make use of legal advice and guidance if they have any misgivings about how they're being treated by social services. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who checks up on the folks who are checking up on us?

The tone of your own post might seem to suggest that your own judgement may not be entirely unclouded by prejudice? :cool2:



And BTW: I don't know personally how accurate the figure is, but the strong suggestion that one child a week in the UK dies from the effects of abuse undetected or ignored by social services surely suggests that there's SOMETHING far, far wrong either with the system or with the people concerned?

Who guards the guards? I can think of a dozen different bodies that have statutory powers to regulate and inspect social services off the top of my head and I know there are several more. As I say,statutory powers, enforceable in the courts.

I think you're right. Most people know little about the legislation or the procedures surrounding child protection (other than they may have heard of or been through the disclosure process, or they may be aware of who they should report suspicions to) and nobody on here will know the details of this actual case that haven't been publicised but that doesn't stop some from jumping to conclusions based on assumption, presumption, stereotyping and prejudice.

My reference to the church? Not really anything other than illustrative of the dangers of making generalisations based on groupings. A lot of people find faith as a means of channelling their desire to do for the common good, I'm sure.

If the one child a week figure is accurate and I don't know if it is, but regardless x amount of children do die through abuse without it ever coming to the attention of social services, that's not necessarily a failing of the system as such. The culpability lies with the person committing the crime first and foremost. Not every death of a child is after a sustained period of abuse - it can be relatively sudden.

But protecting children is everyone's responsibility, whether as parents, or as professionals like teachers and health visitors, or just as members of the public. If people don't report their suspicions then nothing can happen. If it's not followed up properly after that, then there is cause to examine the system or the individual conduct within that, but as simar alluded to, the abilities of people who are determined to inflict pain and hurt on the most vulnerable in our society should never be underestimated and their ability to exploit procedures designed to safeguard the innocent shouldn't be doubted either.

[--------]

Who guards the guards? I can think of a dozen different bodies that have statutory powers to regulate and inspect social services off the top of my head and I know there are several more. As I say,statutory powers, enforceable in the courts.

I think you're right. Most people know little about the legislation or the procedures surrounding child protection (other than they may have heard of or been through the disclosure process, or they may be aware of who they should report suspicions to) and nobody on here will know the details of this actual case that haven't been publicised but that doesn't stop some from jumping to conclusions based on assumption, presumption, stereotyping and prejudice.

My reference to the church? Not really anything other than illustrative of the dangers of making generalisations based on groupings. A lot of people find faith as a means of channelling their desire to do for the common good, I'm sure.

If the one child a week figure is accurate and I don't know if it is, but regardless x amount of children do die through abuse without it ever coming to the attention of social services, that's not necessarily a failing of the system as such. The culpability lies with the person committing the crime first and foremost. Not every death of a child is after a sustained period of abuse - it can be relatively sudden.

But protecting children is everyone's responsibility, whether as parents, or as professionals like teachers and health visitors, or just as members of the public. If people don't report their suspicions then nothing can happen. If it's not followed up properly after that, then there is cause to examine the system or the individual conduct within that, but as simar alluded to, the abilities of people who are determined to inflict pain and hurt on the most vulnerable in our society should never be underestimated and their ability to exploit procedures designed to safeguard the innocent shouldn't be doubted either.


Perhaps that's part of the problem - so many different bodies responsible, and at times each one leaving it to the others, and nothing effective happening.

In this case the one person (the child-minder) who had access to the child apart from the abusers reported her fears to the appropriate people. They did nothing. She kept on telling them, and still they did nothing. Yet the case-log has 60 visits plus recorded? And the spokesperson for the council maintains that no errors were made - no errors bad enough to warrant dismissal, at least? Aye, right.

I should also say that my formative experience of social workers and their ways was in the north of Scotland in the early 1990's. Our local department was linked in a grouping with Orkney, and shared a lot of procedures and attitudes with them.

This has probably coloured my perceptions, I admit.

However, I would still maintain that individuals I met then, and others I've met with since, displayed a fundamental disregard for their clients' legal rights and a capacity for deception that beggared belief.

They seemed to work on the principle that if there were obvious problems in the family, they should get stuck in. If there were no obvious problems in the family, the parents were either in denial, or covering up, so the SWs should get stuck in.

But if the case went too long without resolution, or if they experienced a degree of hostility from the adults concerned, they would back off and leave those adults to get on with whatever they were getting on with.

I got to know a very good solicitor in Inverness who specialised in child law. You should have heard her on the subject. :cool2:

[Brando7]

All involved should be jailed IMO!!

[Mibbes Aye]

Perhaps that's part of the problem - so many different bodies responsible, and at times each one leaving it to the others, and nothing effective happening.

In this case the one person (the child-minder) who had access to the child apart from the abusers reported her fears to the appropriate people. They did nothing. She kept on telling them, and still they did nothing. Yet the case-log has 60 visits plus recorded? And the spokesperson for the council maintains that no errors were made - no errors bad enough to warrant dismissal, at least? Aye, right.

I should also say that my formative experience of social workers and their ways was in the north of Scotland in the early 1990's. Our local department was linked in a grouping with Orkney, and shared a lot of procedures and attitudes with them.

This has probably coloured my perceptions, I admit.

However, I would still maintain that individuals I met then, and others I've met with since, displayed a fundamental disregard for their clients' legal rights and a capacity for deception that beggared belief.

They seemed to work on the principle that if there were obvious problems in the family, they should get stuck in. If there were no obvious problems in the family, the parents were either in denial, or covering up, so the SWs should get stuck in.

But if the case went too long without resolution, or if they experienced a degree of hostility from the adults concerned, they would back off and leave those adults to get on with whatever they were getting on with.

I got to know a very good solicitor in Inverness who specialised in child law. You should have heard her on the subject. :cool2:

I would suggest there's been a lot of changes since the early 90s, in processes, valuebases and mindsets and obviously in legislation and personnel. Nevertheless organisations can be part of the problem by their very nature and it does sometimes seems more pronounced in the public sector.

I don't agree with the point about too many regulators. The number reflects the huge range of roles and tasks that social services carry out. Probation work, child protection, foster placement or mental health assessment for instance. That's just four examples of very different kinds of work that have very different statutory footings. There are many, many more. Regulators tend to be focused on their specific area but where they do work together they tend to work together effectively. Regardless of what I think Scottish Government are amalgamating a lot of them over the next three years anyway :greengrin

[--------]

I would suggest there's been a lot of changes since the early 90s, in processes, valuebases and mindsets and obviously in legislation and personnel. Nevertheless organisations can be part of the problem by their very nature and it does sometimes seems more pronounced in the public sector.

I don't agree with the point about too many regulators. The number reflects the huge range of roles and tasks that social services carry out. Probation work, child protection, foster placement or mental health assessment for instance. That's just four examples of very different kinds of work that have very different statutory footings. There are many, many more. Regulators tend to be focused on their specific area but where they do work together they tend to work together effectively. Regardless of what I think Scottish Government are amalgamating a lot of them over the next three years anyway :greengrin

Sorry - I misunderstood. I would hope that things have improved since the 90's - and I am aware that often social services are well-aware that a child may be at risk, but constrained by the law from getting actively involved. The Procurator-Fiscal's often the guy with the final word.

I'm afraid that spokeswoman for Harringey Social Work Dept set me off a bit.... :blushie:

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry - I misunderstood. I would hope that things have improved since the 90's - and I am aware that often social services are well-aware that a child may be at risk, but constrained by the law from getting actively involved. The Procurator-Fiscal's often the guy with the final word.

I'm afraid that spokeswoman for Harringey Social Work Dept set me off a bit.... :blushie:

TBH I've not heard her comments but my experience is that when people working in social work or social services talk publicly, it often comes across not nearly as well as would be hoped. There are a variety of reasons for that, not all of which are their fault but nevertheless it causes unnecessary difficulties IMO.

I don't think it's unfair to say it's a profession that doesn't communicate well with the public at large.

[--------]

TBH I've not heard her comments but my experience is that when people working in social work or social services talk publicly, it often comes across not nearly as well as would be hoped. There are a variety of reasons for that, not all of which are their fault but nevertheless it causes unnecessary difficulties IMO.

I don't think it's unfair to say it's a profession that doesn't communicate well with the public at large.


She did NOT come over well - my impression was that she appeared complacent, unrepentant, and detached.

How about a simple: "We are devastated at what has happened. We have been working very hard to take on board the lessons of the Victoria Climbie case, but obviously we have a lot of work still to do. We will carry out a full and exhaustive review of this case, co-operating fully with whoever the government sees fit to appoint to head the investigation. We offer our full and unreserved apologies to the family of the child who died."

And mean it? :cool2:


What she said was more or less that mistakes had been made, but none of them serious enough to threaten any individual's position - which may be the truth, but not really the thing to say at the time of asking....

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

Panorama are looking into this on BBC1 just now....

[greenlex]

Why have the perpatrators not being named? Have they been found guilty? I just recieved a sort of "chain text" if you like naming them and urging me to pass it on to everyone I know in a name and shame chain.

[Betty Boop]

Why have the perpatrators not being named? Have they been found guilty? I just recieved a sort of "chain text" if you like naming them and urging me to pass it on to everyone I know in a name and shame chain. Is it not because the Mother has given birth to another child while on remand? :dunno:

[Ants]

Why have the perpatrators not being named? Have they been found guilty? I just recieved a sort of "chain text" if you like naming them and urging me to pass it on to everyone I know in a name and shame chain.

I got the same text last night, bit reluctant to pass it on, just incase it originated from some sicko on the wind up.

It names mother, boyfiend, address and a certain paedo that is living with them.

[EH6 Hibby]

The names were all on the Internet up untill a few days ago, there was stories on the BBC website from just after Baby P died and before the court order protecting the pieces of **** that did it was issued! They have all been removed now though as far as I know! There are several websites showing pictures and naming the mum and it appears to be the same photo's that the papers have been using except they are not blurred out!

[cabbageandribs1875]

one sacked and two others resign


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7757893.stm