I assumed – wrongly – it was all to do with this report http://www.public-standards.org.uk/Library/Survey_of_public.pdf which was reported on by Martin Kettle in the Guardian recently. It came out and didn’t have a word about local reporters (I wrote to Mr Kettle to double-check).

40%’s not bad really. Added to which there is no explanation as to why there is such a dip.

Oh, yes, the general feeling about nationals is pretty much an obvious. But why such a dip in local papers. There hasn’t been an increase in complaints against local papers. Mr Barnett notes the stats, but doesn’t go into the reasons behind it (no space I guess).

What usually happens – and I say this only anecdotally – is we (locals) get lumped in with the nationals, regardless of the quality of the regional reporting. If you took individuals aside and asked them what was worse about their local papers since last year, I would suggest they would generalise, allude to the nationals and then wave their arms about saying “we’ll they’re all the same, aren’t they?”

Killer point? Erm, no. Local reporters get lumped in with national reporters (invariably the tabloids) – yet we don’t operate like them because our main rule is “try not to shit where you eat unless it’s absolutely necessary”.

And yes, I recognise the manufactured outrage.

No mention of bloggers though… maybe that’s a killer point I could expand upon at a later date.

Perhaps not.

xxx Carl

Perhaps reading the links properly might be a good idea, before assuming that you have a killer point to make, eh? I do hope you aren’t a journalist as well, because part of the job is research and fact-checking, innit?

Most of the hysteria about Baby P comes from the tabloid press, whether it’s the red-tops or the ‘middlebrow’ ones. These papers are all engaged in constant circulation wars with each other and use sensationalism and manufactured outrage (see the Daily Mail on John Barrowman exposing himself on radio) in order to maintain the hype. Strangely, even though they sell a lot of copies, they are among the least trusted professionals in the country (and if you don’t think ‘Estate Agent’ is a profession…)

Nothing like a half done job then.

Regional reporters – who make up the majority of the country’s journalists and work on the majority of newspapers – never got a look in. And yet, local people do appear to trust them more than the nationals.

Answers on a postcard please…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/26/pressandpublishing.television

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=41264&sectioncode=1

In the second article it shows that redtop and ‘midmarket’ (Mail and Express?) journos get less than 20% positive responses. What is more, the fall in reputation among journalists of all types is greater than any other type of profession listed.

I was just issuing surprise that you’d trust journalists from the tabloid press, because such trust is rare indeed.

The point is not to ‘defend’ the people involved in the Baby P case, as much as to try to hold back the swathes of knee-jerk blaming of social workers in a case which involves several different agencies before a proper investigation can be carried out. I see that the inquiries are not yet over. So until then it pays to be a little circumspect.

As it happens, I have seen a case in which a social worker made a series of errors which resulted in a girl being left with her abusive father and step-mother for two years after problems were first notified to them. So I know that social workers are not perfect (they are often overworked and dealing with highly subjective information), but I’m not sure that sacking them all before finding out what actually happened is at all productive.

Increase the amount of social work positions within the Councils Children’s Services teams, and restrict no of families/children to each social worker to say 15 children per social worker.

Obviously, training, management supervision, resources etc etc are significant issues but unmanageable case loads increase risk…….

So, having seen both sides, I think I can say with an element of certainty and accuracy that the media – in the tabloid main – does its level best to look for the short-cut version of events. Meaning, they don’t want to bother with the lengthy explanations – they want the meat and that’s all.

There are loads of similar cases like Peter across the UK. There are worse ones as well, where the child lived and continued living with the parents/mother and new boyfriend. There are worse ones were the child goes on to suffer far, far more horrific abuse at the hands of mother, father, stepfather, grandfather, brothers, uncles. When you meet the children who have endured continuing sexual and physical abuse, it’s depressign. You see tomorrows’ junkie, abuser, alcoholic, self-harmer, killer, psycho. If something goes right, then perhaps you see a survivor who goes on to live a better life. Perhaps they write one of those bloody awful misery-lit books entitled “Daddy, no” or “When the lights went off, I would cry”.

I’ve seen good, diligent, big hearted social workers, young and old, with years of experience, juggle 30 or more case files when they should only have ten, attempting to ensure the most worrying cases are looked after. When I once pointed out to a SW she hadn’t seen a child for six months as she should have, she said that family was doing fine and didn’t need her interference – she had other families she needed to dedicate more time to. I looked at the files – she was right. She had about a dozen far more worrying cases to handle.
When I asked her what was her most worrying case at the moment, she replied “the one I don’t know about”.

I’ve seen public-fund paid psychologists and public-fund paid solicitors ensure a social worker who has real and genuine concerns for a child is utterly ignored in a court hearing and the child – who has been battered and battered for weeks, resulting in brain haemorrhage – is returned to the idiot and newly pregnant mother. I’ve read the police interview which has her state how she repeatedly tortured her child, not caring for it’s injuries, and how her new boyfriend would join in. The guy got a little time, the woman got her kid back plus “help” from social services. Not that they wanted to help her, but the court ordered the bitch got “family training” in how to warm milk, interact… spell. I can’t imagine how they didn’t want to lamp the cow when they had the observed sessions.

Somebody indeed dropped a ball here. But fucktards who just run screeching to social services and blames them and them alone don’t help ensure the ball-catching improves across the UK.

The wider issue is a) various Governments have not made sure social services are adequately funded resulting in fewer and fewer social workers handling more and more difficult cases, b) social workers are so vilified – often utterly wrongly (but sometimes rightly) – on such regular basis for both taking children and not taking children that less and less people want to take up the job (it ain’t the money mate) and so the calibre does not improve – it stagnates, c) social workers are not rated as experts and so in court fight a losing battle when they do want to protect a child. Oh and d) perhaps a FoI on how many local authorities employ contract social workers from abroad would surprise a lot of people. As would how many private companies have taken over the fostering process, leaving local authorities with fewer local-authority foster parents who will take on the problem kids.

It doesn’t make sense to rage at all social workers because of this case.

Otherwise that’s like saying all journo’s are abject cunts because Littlejohn is one.

Until all the information is in, this is just another awful case of an appalling trio of turds turning on their own. Not the first, not the last and not always avoidable, regardless of how good or bad a local authority is.

Ta for listening.

Good post by the way Unity. As always though.

The bottom line here is the inspector’s report, that has seen the sacking of the head of children’s services and the resignation of the council leader and a senior council officer. One of the most damning findings of the report was the “failure to talk directly to children at risk”.

Social workers visited Baby P on 60 occasions. I’m not advocating the wholesale attack on all social workers, of course like any profession, including journalism, there are great social workers who intervene regularly to save children from cruelty.

That did not happen on this occasion and those responsible must be held to account and following the publication of the inspector’s report they have been held to account.

It is to the eternal shame of Haringey Council that Sharon Shoesmith, the Head of Children’s Services had to be pushed rather than take responsiblity for her departments failing.

I understand that social workers want to defend their profession and their actions. But to do so in relation to this case is clearly the wrong decision. There was a total failiure here at all levels, don’t try to blame the press for getting it out of proportion or orchestrating a witch hunt.

It is a shame that social workers feel they should have to defend themselves even when they are clearly negligent.

To do so here besmirches and disregards the memory of Child P, who could have been saved if the social services had acted properly.

The main culprits in this case are people who have been found guilty already. In order to decide if social services (or, indeed, the NHS, the police or the CPS, none of whom work for Haringey Council) are culpable I think we need a more full investigation into the facts. The internal report is not the end of it, and no-one is pretending that it is.

Besides, I wonder how many vulnerable children the same social workers that you want to imprison have actually saved?

Anyone on here who tries to defend the actions of social services or the council in this case should be ashamed.

These people should be held accountable and prosecuted under the full force of the law for failing to protect a vulnerable child and allowing him to suffer terrible abuse whilst under their care.

As a non-’cabinet’ councillor in Haringey I have no idea whether your speculations are accurate or not. Like you, I’m not allowed to read the full Case Review Report on ‘Baby P’. I too have to rely on the press and what’s dripped onto the internet. (Some of which is plain wrong, of course.)

Haringey’s full Council meeting on 24 November was not especially helpful. But you might want to view the webcast for the extra facts which did emerge.

Maybe you’re thinking: ‘As a Labour councillor, he would say that, wouldn’t he?’ But I don’t think the key issues are party political. Having a sound child protection system which enables staff to safeguard children and support families is far more important than the current party circus.

There’s a country-wide shortage of social workers. So across the UK front-line staff, their managers and councillors must be worried sick about the impact on recruitment and retention. A crucial factor in protecting children is having good experienced staff in stable teams.

In the seventies I was a frontline social worker. But I can’t remember anything like the current hounding, vilification and baying for blood. There’s a danger that social workers and linked professionals will get so scared of the consequences of making even one mistake that few people will want any job which could involve child protection. That may have a very wide impact – including health professionals; teachers; youth workers; and people in daycare and residential work.

Of course we need people – including councillors and managers – to be accountable and to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. But what we’re now seeing is the professional and personal destruction of individuals as supposed retribution.

Who were presumably psychic and had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight like you, who is so totally convinced of the facts of this case, gleaned though they were from a 15 year old girl (who was already discredited as a reliable witness) and then parsed through the sensationalist filter of the tabloid media, who were only too happy to feed the baying mob.

Social workers need to stop bleating on about their treatment by the media. The media were right to be outraged by this terrible crime and they are right to hold to account those who have failed in their duty.

I’ve just notices that you arrived via DK, in which case you’ll have to excuse me for being a little sharp tongued – been getting a few twats from the facebook hategroups as well.

I can imagine. i glanced at them and wished I hadn’t. The members of those facebook groups seem to believe that if you don’t believe that the defendants in this case deserve to be ‘hung, drawn and quartered’, ‘burnt alive’ or ‘tortured to death’ then you are an apologist for child killers everywhere. ( Those are some of the nicer threats that have been made against the defendants on Facebook.) And, as always, the people we elect to uphold the basic rule of law are making political capital out of it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1088424/Final-insult-Now-public-faces-paying-millions-provide-Baby-Ps-mother-new-identity.html

Apparently, the flat was a filthy, unhealthy place. How much time the social worker spent looking around the flat and checking the conditions in which the children were living? Did she ever take any step to find out who was really living in the house? Did she even take two minutes to clean the baby’s face? Apparently, for her description, on her last visit, he was smear with chocolate to cover the bruises. This is something that abusers very often do to cover the marks. As an experienced social worker, I think she should have known this. What about his childminder’s complaints? Have you taken into consideration this? She complaint to the Social Services more than 20 times, including cuts and bruises. She said once, she had to wipped off blood from his highchair. Is this something that you would also admit as normal? And this happended during the last months of the baby’s life. Maybe, Social Services thought it was normal as they didn’t take it into consideration.

My opinion is that whatever the reasons, neither the social worker nor her managers, took enough time to really worried about the baby. Asking neighbours, visiting the baby’s home, his room, his real living conditions. Stay a while with the baby, and take time to observe him. To me these details would have been necessary to have a whole vision of the baby’s life and conditions.

Instead, they opted to believe the mother and described her as “cooperative”. I find this fact, very naive and unprofessional. And most of all, worrying. I wonder how many other abusers are fooling the social services in that way. I think this is a very serious mistake. Of course, an abuser or a person who is covering an abuser will lie and probably “cooperate” in order not to be discovered or for fear. They kept giving her “opportunities”. In my opinion, it looks more like a: “but, don’t do it again!”. Shouln’t have given any opportunities as well to the baby?

Unfortunately, there is always going to be psycos, abusers, and baby killers. But if as Sharon Shoesmith said they can’t do anything to avoid this. What are the Social Services for then? Aren’t they responsibles for the well-fare of children until they are able to do it for themselves? Shouln’t be the ones protecting the most vulnerables? I find this comment not only unappropiate and shocking, coming from a Head of Social Services, but also, I think it shows an incredible level of careless, coldness, and lack of responsibility. The same, in my opinion, the whole case was handle with.

I think that if Social Services have so much power, so much that they can even overrule the Police department opinion and decisions, and apparently they have the last word in a case whether a child needs to be taken into care, then, they need to act accordingly, and take they work and responsibilities seriously, because children’s lives and future are on their hands.