Saturday, 26 December 2009

Suffer The Little Children...

...because it's cheaper:
A boy of 11 who had been judged a serious risk to other children inflicted the most appalling sexual abuse on a classmate after he was secretly placed in a mainstream school.

The youngster, who was living in local authority care, had carried out sex attacks on children before but was never charged because he was too young.

Instead, social workers moved him into specialist care, where he should have been taught.

But despite a two-inch thick file on his disturbing behaviour, he was put in a mainstream school, where he began the chain of events that led to the attack on a nine-year-old fellow pupil.
The victim's devastated parents believe that this was done to save money.

The response from the authorities is as sadly predictable as it is inadequate:
MP Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the justice committee, called for an independent inquiry. He said: 'I'm not satisfied that all necessary steps have been taken to learn lessons from the case.'
You know what, Sir Alan? I don't think you really need an inquiry to tell you that, since, incredible as it may seem, he's since been placed in yet another mainstream school:
Last night, his victim's devastated parents, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said the move was an attempt by the council to save money.

And they demanded answers after it emerged the boy has since been placed in another mainstream school. They told how, despite complaining to officials, they felt ignored by authorities and were forced to remove their son after his attacker was allowed to remain in classes for eight months - even after admitting the offence to police.
It's like they are going full-out to top some of their atrocities from last year, isn't it?
Northumberland council said the boy was 'doing well with foster parents and at a new school'.
That's the future of the predator they are showing such concern for, by the way...

Does anyone think this creature would ever have been placed in a mainstream school if that school had been the one attended by the children of the local council's SS?

No. Me neither...

9 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

One handgun, one bullet (price 50p) problem solved cheaply.

Damn it doesn't take long for the Christmas spirit to evaporate when I read this stuff.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Well, I would say "It's for the chi-i-ildren", but it clearly isn't.

I doubt whether it's to save money - when did a council ever give a toss about saving money - and with all the enquiry and investigations this will have worked out far more expensive.

I can only assume that they are either total morons or genuinely spiteful.

indigomyth said...

//But despite a two-inch thick file on his disturbing behaviour//

I presume that this will eventually become a "five-centimetre thick file". Imperial measures under the EU will be made illegal, of course.

JPT said...

No.

von Spreuth. said...

And yet, you Brits ask repeatedly "HOW did the Germans allow the holocaust to happen"???

SHIT man, this is happening in a country where you can NOT be executed for the mere fact of asking.

How do you think it will work out when you CAN be?

JuliaM said...

"Damn it doesn't take long for the Christmas spirit to evaporate when I read this stuff."

No, I know what you mean. Did they have to break the story now?

"I can only assume that they are either total morons or genuinely spiteful."

Or, both...

"I presume that this will eventually become a "five-centimetre thick file"."

Heh!

Anonymous said...

The Daily Wail should file an FOI request with the Council the victim's parents should sue the Council for failing in their duty of care.

banned said...

Well I'm glad that I don't have a son in a Northumberland school but as anony says, the Council also has a 'duty of care' for the other pupils and their parents should get together and sue the pants off those reponsible for putting this monster in the midst of their offspring.

My own work based 'community' had a particular issue with the local Council, we found out the name of the individual who had made decisions contrary to our interests. A couple of letters alleging malfeascance in public office worked wonders.

jf123 said...

I AM INTERESTED THAT NOBODY HAS IN ANY WAY QUESTIONED THE ACCURACY OF THIS STORY. NO SOCIAL WORK DEPARTMENT OR POLICE FORCE WOULD IGNORE "APPALLING SEXUAL ATTACKS " ON OTHER CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF THE AGE OF THE CHILD INVOLVED. DO WE KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS CHILD'S BACKGROUND OR INDEED THAT OF HIS ALLEGED VICTIM? WHY DO WE ALWAYS ASSUME THAT "HEARTBROKEN PARENTS" ARE THE MOST OBJECTIVE PEOPLE IN DESCRIBING WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEIR OWN CHILDREN OR INDEED IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM THEIR OWN CHILD IN WHATEVER HAPPENED. HOW DOES THE PARENT INVOLVED KNOW THAT THIS CHILD HAS A HISTORY OF ABUSING OTHER CHILDREN? OR THAT THE SOCIAL WORK DEPARTMENT WANTED TO SAVE MONEY? THIS KIND OF INFORMATION SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE SHARED WITH PEOPLE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH A CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON. WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK FROM HIGHLY EMOTIVE REPORTING SUCH AS THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED BETWEEN THE BOYS AND IN BOTH OF THEIR PREVIOUS LIVES BEFORE COMING TO EASY JUDGEMENTS ABOUT EVIL AND PUNISHMENT.