Comments for en-gb 30 Thu 30 Jul 2015 14:28:36 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at dennisjunior1 Mark Easton:Graphs are just information that are formed instead of giving the everyday people and the political staff...The real reasons regarding a controversial and very problematic case such as this one....~Dennis Junior~ Fri 27 Feb 2009 20:31:05 GMT+1 Enuf_Zed There are lies, damn lies and statistics - Why aren't we told the truth about 'children at risk' - the fact that it is all down to money! It is far cheaper to leave a child with it's abusive parents than to take it into care. Sun 22 Feb 2009 14:29:34 GMT+1 chibaken Hmmmm, so she didn't actually wave the graphs around. Looks like misreporting to me. Any chance of an apology from the BBC? Not just some pathetic post in a blog? Sat 21 Feb 2009 09:04:12 GMT+1 writingsonthewall A nice slow hand clap for the media on this whole affair.They have managed to turn an individual tragedy into a national disaster.I'm not defending Harringey or anyone involved in the case - but the effect of the media mis-information and witch hunt is social services up and down the country simply cannot fill posts.Many more children will now suffer as a result of this. I am disgusted with the entire media over this whole affair - their manipulation of the public sentiment is a disgrace.Find any newspaper story about any sort of child abuse and there will be a picture of baby P alongside. deliberately associating every event with that tragic one.The media has been out of control for some time now and it needs to be shut down.A zero tolerance rule needs to be applied - get any fact of your story wrong (proven in court) and you should be SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY.Free speech is no use if it's false speech. Wed 18 Feb 2009 13:30:32 GMT+1 LaPouBelle Mark, are we to understand from your posting that Sharon Shoesmith in fact did not hold graphs up and wave them around? I heard the interview and she quite clearly said she did not. Your posting says 'whoever did hand them out...' - so are you now saying that 1) they were handed out as part of a media information pack (rather than waived around) and 2) this was not done by Sharon Shoesmith? If so, I think this is a disgrace, how is it you are able to make such false claims on national TV? The people who choose to watch the BBC do so because they expect a certain level of journalistic integrity - not for the first time, we are feeling let down. It seems to be that the reports you made were untrue, in which case, you owe us and particularly, Sharon Shoesmith, an apology. Sun 15 Feb 2009 22:37:22 GMT+1 expertnumbskull Does this mean that Mark wants to apologise for misleading viewers/listeners - he seems to be saying that Shoesmith did not hold up or wave any graphs around. Surely this deserves an apology. Sat 14 Feb 2009 23:48:24 GMT+1 veryfaraway I agree with #6, 8, and 9.Social workers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The public villifies them when they get it wrong; they are required to tick boxes - the more the better; they are understaffed; they have to be "media smart"."This is a stark warning to all officials: that you may receive training and rehearsals in a crisis, but end up creating a far worse impression if you are seen to have lost sight of your humanity."I suggest you apply that statement to yourself as a journalist. Go beyond the impression and write a damning & rounded (balanced) report on just how difficult a job it is, the lack of resources and HOW it could be improved. Did they do anything well in Haringey?I don't know Ms Shoesmith so I have no idea how well/badly she did her job. Thu 12 Feb 2009 16:49:35 GMT+1 SheffTim One factor that is constantly ignored by public and media is that one result of the 'blame, shame and punish' responses to cases such as Victoria Climbie, Baby P is that there are not enough staff in child protection departments, many departments have near permanent high vacancy rates (understandably new social workers are now reluctant to go into child protection work), consequently caseloads are much larger than guidelines recommend, social workers are spending 80% of their time on paperwork to show procedures are being followed, are not given the time, training or resources to do their jobs effectively. There needs to be more constructive thinking about how to fix this problem, and greater resources and acknowledgement of the very real difficulties involved have to be part of that. Otherwise child protection could collapse completely in some boroughs - I imagine Haringey could be close to this - it has many child protection posts unfilled. Would you go into child protection work today? Wed 11 Feb 2009 10:29:24 GMT+1 RangerGrainger Graphs and statistics are only as meaningful as the data that they represent. I well remember arriving ten minutes early for a hospital appointment. Then after I had been seen, over an hour later, I observed one of the administrative staff filling in a form to the effect that I had been seen within a few minutes of the agreed time which was blatantly untrue.No doubt I should have made a note of the name of the person and reported them, but I was already quite late for another appointment... Tue 10 Feb 2009 11:17:48 GMT+1 hants_gw RE: 3. alexandercurzon> RE Ms Shoesmith LIKE HER OR HATE HER> NEITHER SHE OR HER DEPARTMENT KILLED> THE CHILD.No one contests this. There is no suggestion that Sharon Shoesmith should face a trial for murder nor anything like it.The issue is that she was lavishly paid to protect children like baby P and she failed totally, despite having many, many chances to intervene. For that alone she should probably have been dismissed. However she then chose to make the whole situation worse by appearing in public waving bits of paper that - in her mind - "proved" how wonderful she was, while figuratively standing over baby P's corpse. It was a smug, clueless performance and confirmed that she could not possibly continue in that job. Furthermore, based on her recent interview, she continues to fantasise that she is blameless.The worrying part is the possibility that the same people who appointed her may well appoint her successor. Tue 10 Feb 2009 10:28:44 GMT+1 Lazarus This is just yet another example of how obsessed with statistics our public services have become under NuLabour and is not at all exclusive to social services.The reason that Baby P was probably neglected by her department was because they were following the stupid mandates sent down from the Home Office that demand statistical collation first and common sense about fourth or fifth, if that.Throughout public services in general - social services, police, etc - compiling the figures and auditing the reports to demonstrate favourable responses to Home Office targets now takes up 80-90% of the time. Hence why social workers and the police are stuck in offices instead of out doing their actual jobs.The Baby P incident really is just the tip of the iceberg. But this government knows that officially speaking, the figures are what tells the full story and so they are all that matters.So the real villains in this and all other public service fiascos are the Home Office, for perpetuating the insanity of targets, schemes, graphs, political correctness, diversity, league tables, and basing funding on all of the above.The question for the public is simple - would you rather have high quality public services, or would you rather have great performance figures? Because it's fair to say, after the last decade's worth of evidence, that the two or definitely mutually exclusive. Tue 10 Feb 2009 07:40:50 GMT+1 Secret Love It seems to be a feature of the current administration that nobody ever does anything wrong - even the opposition "do nothing."The merging of educational and social services for children was a mistake from the start, and this death emphasized Ms Shoesmith's total lack of experience in social work.Her lack of understanding remains complete - she genuinely doesn't understand. One can only hope that the people who appointed her were not allowed to choose her successor...... Tue 10 Feb 2009 03:37:34 GMT+1 gruad999 Shoesmith expected all she had to do was turn up at the office and mouth the latest NuLab speak of "Lessons Learned" and "Working in Partnership" while acting as a titular head for 100k. Haringey and the like are part of a vast culture of cronyism that NuLab have created in the Public Sector. Her attitude said it all. It was like Goodfellas over again. How can I be wrong when I am a "made woman"? Mon 09 Feb 2009 21:52:09 GMT+1 alexandercurzon RE Ms Shoesmith LIKE HER OR HATE HERNEITHER SHE OR HER DEPARTMENT KILLEDTHE CHILD.THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE ARE THOSEWHO DID KILL THE CHILD.NOT Ms Shoesmith. Mon 09 Feb 2009 21:18:46 GMT+1 John1948 I do not judge an organisation on its ability to get everything right first time (though the more right they are the better). Getting it right first time depends on a lot of careful planning, but luck can play its part. The real measure of an organisation is how it copes if things go wrong.We all know of shops which replace imperfect goods without a fuss. The council who sends round next day a dust cart if a rubbish collection has been missed. The doctor who will look for a different diagnosis if their initial response to vague symptoms does not seem to be working. The bank which apologises for not doing what they promised and work to sort out the mess they created (yes, my local branch did just that 25 years ago).But Miss Shoesmith and her council supporters just wanted to claim that they were perfect. In her position any decent person would have admitted that things had gone wrong, apologised and had a report with the council within a week and had all the changes needed in the pipeline. If funds had not been available, I'd have gone public with detailed costed plans. Only then would I have asked the question to find out if I still had the confidence of the public. Perhaps with an apology and a plan before the matter built up a head of steam she might have survived, but without either of these she has shown how deluded and out of touch with humanity she has become. Mon 09 Feb 2009 20:24:35 GMT+1 John Ellis Graphs are just colated information.. of all these children how many hours were given to make sure they were well placed and happy or is it a case of once the paper work is done that the child is forgoten untill something happens.What is the average hours spent in support per worker per child? Mon 09 Feb 2009 18:42:12 GMT+1