Change font size
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:26 pm


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 19 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A point of principle
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:40 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
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

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:21 am
Posts: 2193
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:32 am 

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:12 pm
Posts: 30
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:44 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Wakefield
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:23 am
Posts: 252
Location: Police State
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:04 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Sceptical Steve wrote:
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.


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.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:25 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
Children are meal tickets, and the feminists won't have it any other way.

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:38 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09 pm
Posts: 331
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:42 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 333
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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:09 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:54 am
Posts: 407
Location: Oxfordshire
thespecialone wrote:
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

_________________
http://thefrogsalittlehot.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:36 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 805
Quote:
Can we now see that point of principle applied to PIP?



Non. PDT_Armataz_02_35


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
Quote:
Bizarrely, the parents cannot be named, in order to "protect" the child.

To do WHAT? PDT_Armataz_01_40 PDT_Armataz_01_40

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:21 pm
Posts: 261
Location: EU Airstrip One
RAENORTH wrote:
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 spared the full penalty for their crimes.
The Western Daily Press gives a clearer picture of the social worker's concerns
Quote:
Social worker Sara Matty warned her bosses that the couple, from Weston-super-Mare, were incapable of caring for their child and urged that the baby be placed in a mother and baby residential unit. But the court heard she was ignored and the baby was allowed to go home with the parents.
The 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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:59 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:30 pm
Posts: 527
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:

Quote:
"...North Somerset social workers fail in their duty and thereby fail to prevent a crime, whereupon the criminals are spared the full penalty for their crimes...This surely has to be wrong. Crimes must be punished. The point must be that, if the regulators' neglect enabled or exacerbated the crime, then the responsibility is shared. The issue has then to be that the regulators are also penalised - not that the criminals are let off..."


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.


Quote:
'The child's father is in his twenties and her mother is in her thirties, but their names were not released to protect the baby.

Judge Ticehurst told the father: "You clearly were far too young and not able to look after your child.That child suffered considerable neglect due to your inability to care for her. But in my view you and your partner were let down by the social services, who have a duty to provide for you. In my judgement it would be quite wrong to impose anything other than a community order, for you to get the help and support you need." '


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...

Quote:
"...social worker Sara Matty had seen the baby's mother at her home in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, and noted she had learning difficulties.

The father also had learning difficulties, and it was noted that he appeared to be 'a bit clumsy' with the baby and 'inappropriate and childlike' in his handling of her..."


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...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A point of principle
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:54 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09 pm
Posts: 331
DodgyGeezer wrote:
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:

Quote:
"...North Somerset social workers fail in their duty and thereby fail to prevent a crime, whereupon the criminals are spared the full penalty for their crimes...This surely has to be wrong. Crimes must be punished. The point must be that, if the regulators' neglect enabled or exacerbated the crime, then the responsibility is shared. The issue has then to be that the regulators are also penalised - not that the criminals are let off..."


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.


Quote:
'The child's father is in his twenties and her mother is in her thirties, but their names were not released to protect the baby.

Judge Ticehurst told the father: "You clearly were far too young and not able to look after your child.That child suffered considerable neglect due to your inability to care for her. But in my view you and your partner were let down by the social services, who have a duty to provide for you. In my judgement it would be quite wrong to impose anything other than a community order, for you to get the help and support you need." '


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...

Quote:
"...social worker Sara Matty had seen the baby's mother at her home in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, and noted she had learning difficulties.

The father also had learning difficulties, and it was noted that he appeared to be 'a bit clumsy' with the baby and 'inappropriate and childlike' in his handling of her..."


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.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 19 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net