BBC Blog Network

User Profile

reform08

Listed below are comments made by reform08 between Tuesday, 18th November 2008 and Saturday, 15th August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Baby Peter and the uncertainty principle 06:35am on 15 Aug 2009 Cmt 31. makes the point that as a social worker he/she spends too much time doing paperwork. I read recently of social workers complaining 80% of their time is spent on paperwork, report writing etc, and only 20% actually visiting families. If this is correct, then something is drastically wrong. I believe it can be rectified by employing administrative staff (secretaries, etc.) to do the admin.
I worked as a secretary for a team of doctors in an NHS hospital. Their job was to be out on ward rounds for most of the day seeing patients. At lunchtime and the end of the day, I would see them briefly when they dropped off dictaphone tapes. I typed up reports, letters, referrals, followed any instructions given in the tapes regarding the patients, made follow-up appointments with other departments, etc., etc.
Even complex patient information and instructions were relayed this way, for secretarial staff to deal with.
I can’t understand why social workers do not work the same way. Surely they can dictate whilst out on their rounds/visits, just as doctors do. Their job is to assess the families and children with frequent visits, not sit in an office doing admin. for the majority of their time. If doctors spent so much time doing admin., we would feel it was a complete waste of their skills, and the same applies to social workers.
Time to bring back children's homes? 11:45am on 24 Apr 2009 #23 (Joan Olivares) makes good sense. I was thinking along the same lines, having read about the UK charity, SOS Childrens Villages, who house abandoned/orphaned children in Africa and Europe. The children are brought up in a house and environment as similar to a family home as possible. Just a few children live in a house with a mother figure to take care of them. From what Ive read, they are housed in an SOS childrens village with all its own facilities, and the idea is that they have the same familiar environment and caring adults all their lives until they are adults. They get a good education and all their needs are taken care of.
Perhaps with some modifications, this idea could work in the UK, housing the children in ordinary houses in the community, with well-trained women or couples to run the houses. The carers would have to be thoroughly assessed, and be people who have the commitment to stay with those same children until they are adults. Its obvious that the best place for children is in a family home situation with caring adults who remain constant in their lives. Children should not be moved around from one foster home to another, nor be housed in a large institution like the care homes of the past. If houses like the SOS houses were run here, they would have to be monitored regularly, and care plans drawn up based on the individual needs of each child.
Perhaps the SOS charity can liaise with the government to see if their ideas can be put in place here. The charity has very good outcomes for the children in their care, using this method, and it seems logical that its in the best interests of children to be housed this way. The children have the stability and security of knowing the same familiar people are caring for them on a daily basis, taking an interest in their education and every aspect of their lives, basically doing what a loving parent does. That is what a child really needs.
Condoms or family meals? 05:00am on 28 Mar 2009 Having lived in the Netherlands as a UK ex-pat, some differences I saw were;
1. Dutch girls generally had higher self esteem. They seemed more confident, and had higher aspirations. Having a baby as a teenager is just not an interesting option to them. I don’t even think the job opportunities were any better than the UK, yet girls just do not see having a baby as their only option. I think this more mature attitude came from better parenting, better sex education methods, and better teaching generally. The relevant authorities in the UK should visit the Netherlands to see what works there and why their girls are different.
It seems to be low self esteem in young girls which leads to early sexual experience. The question is why do they have low self esteem? If its poor parenting, then schools must help girls by teaching the life skills that they are not learning at home. The same goes for boys of course. I think the statistics show that the Netherlands has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe, so obviously they are doing something right.
2. Its not the case in the Netherlands that young pregnant girls/women will be given a flat or house. I read somewhere that the UK is the only country in Europe that follows this practice of generous benefits and housing for young mothers. It is a completely misguided policy and has contributed to the breakdown in society that we see today. Children raising children, neglect and abuse of babies and children. I believe a lot of this stems from a totally flawed benefit system. An intelligent government would have tackled this long ago, as the negative results have been apparent for many years.
3. I noticed that for many Dutch parents, their children were their absolute priority, and central in their lives. They spent time with them, doing family things together, etc. Thats the same in many European societies, but unfortunately not so in Britain. When I visit the UK, I notice that the whole attitude towards children is different. Just the way people interact with children, from shopkeepers to government institutions. I have heard the same from other UK ex-pats. Also, sadly, there seem to be more selfish parents, who put their own interests first, and are more interested in material things than nurturing their children. Children pick up on the fact that their parents are pre-occupied with their own interests and selfish lives. It leads to a general disconnect and by the time they are teenagers, the results can be seen in unhappy or aggressive teenagers, seeking sexual experience as a way of filling the gaps in their lives.
Somehow these parents have missed out on learning what is required of a parent, and how to relate to their children. And realising that once you have a child, its not all about you anymore. Perhaps freely available parenting classes for every stage of the childs life are an idea.
The media, TV, advertising also play a part in shaping attitudes towards children and the way teenagers behave, and that needs to be addressed. Attitudes can be changed, policies can be changed. I dont think any of the current situation is irreversible. But old fashioned family values seemed to fall out of fashion, and its time to admit that many of those values worked, and to bring them back.
Baby P - It will happen again 00:37am on 11 Dec 2008 I support a public enquiry into this case. We need to investigate why so many professionals failed to see the whole picture, and failed to act on the childs behalf.
I have read the Serious Case Review Executive Summary online on the Haringey council website. Police enquiries into the abuse started in December 2006. Investigations were made again in June 2007. The mother was arrested twice during this time in connection with the abuse. The report states that it was known that a Mr. H. was a friend. But all professionals understood the household to comprise of just the mother and children. Police investigation after the childs death (in August 2007) established that the boyfriend (Mr H) had been present in the house probably since February 2007.

My question is, why did the police, in the June investigation, just take the mothers word that she was living alone, rather than making the necessary enquiries?
The child was already on the at risk register. The mother had previously been arrested on suspicion of causing the abuse. The report says the police were enquiring about potential perpetrators of the childs injuries. Surely they should have questioned neighbours, to find out more about the household, visitors, etc. Did they not think to enquire next door and along the street, to find out what was going on in the house. Why did they believe the mothers statement that she lived alone, without verifying the facts?

Apparently neighbours and others in the street were well aware the men lived at the house. They used to see them up and down the street regularly. Neighbours and others in the street said that nobody ever asked them who was living there. They have said they would have told police, if asked.

Police have also stated that, had they known the men were living there, this would have changed their investigation considerably. Yet this man lived there from February onwards, with the lodger, underage girlfriend and lodgers children in the final weeks. How hard would it have been to find out? They were not invisible. The police never took the trouble to ask the local community.

In the light of this tragedy, I hope the police are assessing what went wrong with their investigation. If they had discovered the men living there in June (which would not have been too difficult), things could have turned out very differently for this child. Background checks would have revealed the history of animal torture. The lodger would have been charged, as he had an underage girlfriend in the house.

In future, if a child in a household is on the at-risk register, will police and social workers now make themselves aware of exactly who lives in the house, by asking neighbours and doing the necessary investigations?
Neighbours should be made aware of a child on the at-risk register , and asked to report anything unusual. A child at risk is in the care of social workers, whilst still within the home. The community should be part of the safety net surrounding that child. Better communication between police, social workers etc, and the local community might ensure that people get the complete picture of what is happening. Instead, in this case, it seems that social workers, police, neighbours, and all the individuals involved, had just a part of the jigsaw puzzle, and no-one had the complete picture. That was the tragedy for this child.
Baby P - It will happen again 08:00am on 06 Dec 2008 I agree with Comment 95 regarding teachers. From what we've read on the Baby P case, the older children in the family seem to have not said anything to teachers about their dreadful home life. Was this because they were intimidated by those in the household into not telling? Or did they think their life was normal, as they had grown up this way? The boyfriend moved in, it seems the violence escalated, and escalated again when the lodger moved in. They must have been scared of the new men in the house. They probably saw or heard the baby being hurt. Its tragic to think they came to school each day and said nothing. If only these children had been able to confide in a teacher, perhaps this could have ended differently.

Would the teachers have been informed in this case that a pupil's younger sibling was on the at-risk register? That fact must have had implications for all the children in the family, therefore I would think teachers should be informed. I know we can’t expect teachers to do the job of social workers. But sometimes the teacher may be the only trustworthy adult that the child sees and can confide in.

What can we learn from this case? Were there clues (in hindsight) with these older children at school? I'd like to know how we can recognize such children, and help them.

Can we encourage more open discussion in the classroom, so that young children know they can tell the teacher in confidence, if they are threatened, scared, see a sibling being harmed, etc. It could save younger siblings and babies too young to speak.

Its much better to discuss it openly at school age, so they are not keeping these terrible situations a secret. Right now, there will be children in school who for various reasons are not speaking out while this is happening at home. Its sad that there seem to be so many barriers, in their eyes, to speaking out.

We should be teaching our children that they should feel safe and secure at home, etc. To not be intimidated by anyone who tells them to keep quiet about violence in the house. Let them know they will be safe, even if they tell. The sort of things we as parents teach our children if they should encounter bullies, etc. But if the bullies are the parents/mother's boyfriends etc, then who can help the children speak out? Who could have helped the victims in the recent incest case to have the courage to tell someone? The schools are one place where they can be encouraged to speak about abuse/incest etc. If it takes extra investment and special teachers to deal with this subject, then invest in it. Teach them self-esteem, confidence, courage. Let them know it is a safe environment to speak out if they are hurt. All reports must be dealt with, not ignored, as mentioned above. If we are serious about preventing child abuse, the schools have to be involved in the preventative strategies.

Get the subject of child abuse/incest etc, out in the open in our schools, and stop the secrecy that allows the abuse to continue.
The problem that's hanging around 12:12pm on 28 Nov 2008 Comment 42 regarding youth clubs is exactly right. My father, in his 70’s, has said to me on various occasions that he feels sorry for today’s teenagers, because when he was a teenager, there were youth clubs to go to, providing free activities for them. He and his friends all went along regularly and had a great time. From what I understand, they were in every local area and served a very useful purpose.

Its obvious that today, there’s nowhere like that for teenagers to go. They hang about outside with nothing to do, and eventually some of them will cause trouble. As the saying goes, the devil makes work for idle hands.
Whose bright idea was it to get rid of all the youth clubs? I think if they were brought back, they would go a long way towards solving the problem of bored teenagers on the streets. They could have games rooms, show films, run courses, there are so many possibilities. They should be staffed by paid youth workers who get to know the teenagers in the local area. Surely its far better to include teenagers in the local community in this way, rather than alienating them, and ending up living in fear of the vandalism and trouble they cause.

I really wish that the government/ councils etc, would invest money in youth clubs and similar schemes for young people. It would repay the investment, because if teenagers felt they were included and part of the local community, hopefully less of them would feel like vandalizing and annoying that same community! At the moment, the lack of investment in facilities for them sends the message to them that they are not important and not valued, just a nuisance, etc. They’ve got that message from society, and therefore that’s the way they act. Of course, youth clubs won’t solve everything. There are other issues in some cases, like poor parenting and lack of discipline, etc, as others have mentioned. But youth clubs seem like a good idea that would work for a lot of teenagers, so why not bring them back?
Baby P - It will happen again 11:57pm on 19 Nov 2008 AustralianSusan (comment 15) mentioned the recent New Zealand case of the child put in the spin-drier who died. NZ has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the western world. Unfortunately the majority of these children are Maori, even though they are a minority of the general population. When I researched these cases a few years ago, it became apparent that the welfare system is similar to the UK, and the cases involved single mothers, unemployed boyfriends and hangers-on in the house, etc etc. The social workers seem far more reluctant to intervene than with white NZ children, because they have been taught to make allowances for cultural differences, be non-judgemental of different lifestyles etc. Informal childcare arrangements were (and perhaps still are) allowed which were not subject to the same scrutiny as general NZ childcare, and at least one case involved a childs death from abuse in this type of childcare. I'm all for cultural sensitivity etc, but when it gets to the extent that we ignore the danger to the child in the name of respecting lifestyle and cultural differences, its gone too far.
In these cases, those Maori children received less protection because of their ethnicity and that is discrimination! It is exactly the opposite of what was intended, but the result is sadly shown in NZ child abuse statistics. I doubt that the situation has changed in NZ, judging by recent cases. A previous poster mentions the same has happened here, with social workers making allowances in the Baby P case for this chaotic household, on the basis of not wishing to stereotype and judge. Yet surely we should all be held to the same standards when it comes to caring for children. Otherwise we are guilty of the very discrimination we are trying so hard to avoid! When the official report on this comes out, I'd like to know if the state of the house in the Baby P case was really as bad on regular social workers visits as is mentioned in the press, with fleas, faeces, dead animals around etc. I simply cannot believe social workers would think this is acceptable, just because people are from a different background/class or whatever. What are others views on this? Are social workers here willing to overlook this much, due to their training in anti-discrimination, political correctness etc?
Baby P - It will happen again 01:13am on 19 Nov 2008 Another change which may help children at risk: please can the authorities/police or whoever put all people (including children) accused of torturing and harming animals onto a database. Studies show time and again that children/youths who do this often graduate to harming people. If the mother's boyfriend in the Baby P case had been checked against this database, perhaps it would have been a red flag to social workers, or at least the police involved, that any children in the house were at risk from this man, who was prosecuted for torturing small animals as a youth. That is, of course, if Social Services had done their job and known exactly who was living in the house. It is essential that in future they know of all occupants, especially when dealing with a child at risk. Families should have to give details of all occupants, and know that they face a fine or prison sentence if they lie about this. Yet another aspect which went unchecked and could have saved the life of this baby.
Baby P - It will happen again 11:47pm on 18 Nov 2008 Reading about this tragic story as an ex-pat, it paints a sorry picture of the UK today. When we read of the group of individuals in this house and the dysfunctional lifestyle they had, we have to realise that many misguided social policies
over the years have lead to this point. As many have said, removing the current incentives for single mothers to have children is a start. It has lead to a breakdown in family life, serial boyfriends who harm children, etc. I suggest no child welfare benefits for anyone after the second child, no moving to the top of the housing queue for having children. These are tough measures but the current system is a mess. Children are the terrible victims as many are not wanted, except as a means to cash and housing. I have read some blogs where people mention voluntary sterilisation with a cash incentive, perhaps after 2 children. As someone who was always very PC and a lifelong Labour voter, I can hardly believe that I now think this to be an inspired idea! If people are having children for cash, pay them not to have children! My views have changed so much, because I can now see what harm we have done to children with decades of liberal and PC policies, leading to the destruction of the traditional family unit and lack of accountability. These policies include a complete lack of adequate sentencing by the Courts in the case of child killers because of the murder/manslaughter dilemma. Please, please campaign for a change in the law to bring about a separate charge for the unlawful killing of a child, which takes into account the prolonged cruelty inflicted, and has a severe sentence. This new law was brought in recently in Australia to avoid the nonsense of people getting off on manslaughter charges here with a minimum of 5 years! The current UK law is a nonsense, regarding having to prove whether murder was the intention or not. Is the much lesser manslaughter sentence really justified in these horrific cases? At the very least these people deserve 25 years. Other changes should include child benefit being linked to the welfare of the child, meaning compulsory visits to child welfare clinics, home visits by child health nurses etc. Social workers are too distracted by parents and other issues to focus on the children during the visits, so dedicated child health visitors are needed. I hope that everyone concerned about this case joins forces to form some organisation that campaigns to change the many policies that have left children so vulnerable and at risk in the UK today. So much can be done. It requires some tough action but surely
we see now that things cannot go on like this. In memory of this baby and and all future abused children, we must make the changes. May children become valued and cherished in society again, and may every child in Britain be a wanted child.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

reform08