The parents of a newborn baby left with horrific injuries and fractures all over her body walked free from court today, despite admitting child cruelty charges.

This because the judge asserts the father and his partner "were let down by the social services, who have a duty to provide for you". Judge Ticehurst also ordered an investigation into the case, stating that there had been a "grave failure" by social services at North Somerset Council.

Now this raises intriguing point of principle. Cast as the regulatory authorities in this case, North Somerset social workers fail in their duty and thereby fail to prevent a crime, whereupon the criminals are then spared the full penalty for their crimes.

View full article here

A point of principle means nothing if the law doesn't act to prosecute those they deem to blame, in this case social workers. And why the judge felt he had to let the parents walk free when they caused the injuries to the poor child is beyond me. No one held to account, neither SW, or the scumbag parents.

Then again nothing that passes for the farce we call law in this country surprises me anymore.

Political correctness and professional handwringers have made sure that most SW are now university graduates trained to PC guidelines regardelss of the damage it causes to children with violent parents.

Every institution in the country is useless or downright corrupt.

Point well made, Richard.

Yes, as long as that blame is passed directly to the people (at the top) in charge and not then passed onto entirely to the particular social worker(s) involved......of which i have, unfortunately, (non-direct) experience.

Presumably the upshot of this is that social workers will feel obliged to take even more children into care? Christopher Booker's going to be even busier fighting the inevitable injustices.

If there is a scintilla of a chance that "the department" will come out of this looking a bit tainted, they will modify the legislation to stop that happening.

The bureaucracy is right…

The people is wrong.

This, I fear, may be the outcome ... the classic "sledgehammer to miss a nut" scenario. They will continue to take the wrong children into care, while missing those who are most vulnerable, all the time demanding more powers and more "resources".

Bizarrely, the parents cannot be named, in order to "protect" the child.

Children are meal tickets, and the feminists won't have it any other way.

I wonder if there are a few concerned citizens in the neighborhood of these parents, who will feel obliged to mete out the requisite punishment, that the law courts failed to do.

I have noticed that The Mail Online has this story way down the page below a story about a drunken dancing student and an orang-utan. The main story is a populist one about the boss of RBS. I find it incredible that the story of a broken child is so far down the page. Tells a lot about MSM of course.

The mind boggles, at first I thought that was the same story until I looked

Non.

To do WHAT?

The Western Daily Press gives a clearer picture of the social worker's concernsThe issue is whether government departments should have the power to remove any child when the child appears to be in danger. This doesn't seem to be in the same category of the cases that Christopher Booker has been pursuing.

In this case it seems that Sara Matty realised that harm would come to the child and pressed (urged) for action to be taken, but her bosses ignored her. There is a thin line between parental rights and rights of the child, but in this case these appear to have been such inadequate parents that the child was seen to be in danger, as proved to be the case.

Not quite as simple as first appears?

I did not attend the court, and have to rely on the reporting of the 'Daily Mail', which is a broken reed at the best of times. But I seem to have obtained quite a different view of the matter to that of most of the commentators here...

The first point to make is that the headline of the Mail's piece and the data in the text seem to be a bit at odds. The headline talks about 'parents walking free', a point which is duly seized upon by our esteemed blogger:



And yet the 'criminals' were not let off. They pleaded guilty, and received two-year community orders each. You may respond that this seems pretty close to being let off for a child cruelty case, so let us look at what evidence the Mail provides us with.




What is going on here? 'Too young' in his twenties? Not ABLE to look your child? Let down by the social services who have a duty to care for YOU? This doesn't sound like the stereotypical evil parent who beats their child to sleep every night. Let's read further...



Ah! That makes sense. We are not talking about evil criminals at all here. We are talking about a couple with mental disabilities, to an extent where they were not able to care properly for the child they had. A tragic tale, certainly. Perhaps they should not have had a child. But it seems that it was the PARENTS who depended on the social services for support, and that it was the social services failure to provide this that led to the damage to the child.

I have just seen that gregb has pipped me to the post with this one. And it is true that one major lesson to learn is that regulatory authorities never seem to learn by their mistakes, and do not seem to be able to be satisfactorily punished - a point made in the OP. But the lesson I take is that the MSM will often produce a completely misleading headline, and it is a good idea not to be take in by them...

But....why do we need Social Workers? In my unhappy experience with them, I'd sack the lot. Their presence is unhealthy to a society, in that people who would ordinarily have taken an interest in their neighbours, now, assume that problems are being dealt with by 'the social workers'. In effect, a beneficial stratum of our civilisation has been destroyed by the malignancy that is socialism.