The independent report, published today by Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board, concluded that professionals involved in the care of Keanu Williams failed to meet even basic standards of good practice.Read that again.....basic standards.
Not the tricky stuff. Not the Moriarty-like cunning of mothers who smear chocolate over their infants' face to hide the bruises, the basics.
"The core business of the Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board was characterised by inattention to procedures and protocols and an absence of reasonable judgement when making decisions about Keanu in a number of instances.
"From this it follows that the core business of the Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board was not functioning well enough to ensure effective multi-agency practice in meeting Keanu's needs."And we're paying how much for this again?
At least a few of the small, insignificant front-liners have gone.
Jane Held, the independent chair of the Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board … said council and health staff had resigned or been sacked. She would not say how many, but confirmed it was more than single figures.So, 11? Still not enough.
Peter Hay, strategic director, children, young people and families at the city council, said … there were not enough "great" social workers in Birmingham doing "great work".And what are you doing about that, Peter? Isn't that why they pay you the big bucks?
The serious case review report on Keanu said that Shuttleworth's chaotic lifestyle – she moved addresses frequently, was sometimes homeless and changed partners regularly – made helping the family challenging.Look, having 'a chaotic lifestyle' isn't an excuse. It's a frackin' CLUE! I mean, good god, even the perpetrator seems to grasp that!
Shuttleworth herself spoke to the review team. She spent her childhood in care and expressed "some surprise" that Keanu was not taken from her when he was born./facepalm
7 comments:
I know its not a popular view, but I do feel some sympathy for social workers. Yes there are obviously plenty of useless pieces of sh*t who should have been drummed out of the office within a month of starting work. That I accept, and it should happen a lot more than it does now.
But the task facing the honest decent ones is biblical in the decision making required. If they take too many kids away from parents they are destroying families, many for no reason, if they don't take a kid away and one dies as a result then they're spread all over the papers as having failed. Basically social workers have to be able to predict the future correctly 100% of the time. This kid will be OK if left with its mother, this one won't. Its not a do-able scenario really.
For example, as in this case, if social workers removed kids from all mothers who move addresses and change partners frequently then there'd be a heck of a lot more kids in care, most of which didn't need to be there, and were suffering worse care than being left with the mother.
The real solution is not to enable people to live lives of such disfunction by giving them all free cash to do so. Strangely enough if you subsidise bad behaviour you'll probably get more of it, not less.
Bunny
What Jim said, one of the comments under the article in the Independent stated that Birmingham is nigh on bankrupt as a city. I was reading that in the 40/50s the government, one that believed in central planning (Labour) saw that Birmingham was being very successful and its success was a threat to the other cities around it. So it persuaded the great and the good of Birmingham to move some of its industry of out the city and relocate to help other areas around it. This failed and wrecked Birmingham and the transplanted industries failed due to disruption. Now Birmingham is broke, as Jim says we are subsidising poor standards of behaviour with what little we have left to pay for it.
Strangely enough if you subsidise bad behaviour you'll probably get more of it, not less.
Well said Jim and perfectly echoing a comment I've just made on a post above.
We do expect too much of social workers. Perhaps if their remit was more tightly focussed - instead of being dictated by the mob/media - they'd have more success? But for that to work, we all need to accept that tragedy does happen (even to kids) and that we simply cannot prevent it all... heartless as that sounds, its the real world out there no some utopia no matter how much the lefty liberals wish it to be.
If we stopped subsidising breeding, there would be fewer desperate little tots for the social services to notice so maybe we could whittle down their numbers so only the intelligent and dedicated remain. However feckless and drugaddled the mother may be, it would be worth the hassle of contraception or abortion to avoid responsibility. How about iphones as a reward for voluntary sterilisation?
XX How about iphones as a reward for voluntary sterilisation? XX
Na. They are chavs. Six bottles of white lightning will suffice.
"The real solution is not to enable people to live lives of such disfunction by giving them all free cash to do so. "
Totally agree, but that's a long-term solution, and we are where we are NOW. There's more Keanus out there.
More than we care to imagine.
"Now Birmingham is broke, as Jim says we are subsidising poor standards of behaviour with what little we have left to pay for it."
Is Birmingham really broke? I bet it isn't.
"But for that to work, we all need to accept that tragedy does happen (even to kids) and that we simply cannot prevent it all..."
I'm happy to accept that 100% success rate isn't possible...
...but (and it's a huge but, the size of Diane Abbott's) these cases are so glaringly obviously abuse - or the potential for same - that if they can't get these ones right, what can they do?
"How about iphones as a reward for voluntary sterilisation?"
Well, I think Furor has a much cheaper option... ;)
Post a Comment