A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the >social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of violence >from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social >services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone >parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or aortic >aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder. Their
young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death. Why
should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media and >distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because the
child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty, perhaps, than
an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP benefits are cancelled
and who then starves to death in his flat.
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
On 20/01/2024 in message <l12aseFi6l9U3@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the
social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of violence >> from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social
services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone
parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or aortic
aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder. Their
young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death. Why
should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media and
distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because the
child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty, perhaps, than >> an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP benefits are cancelled
and who then starves to death in his flat.
Is this not a case where the social worker should have exercised some
common sense? Accepting I don't know what he/she did is it not a question
of calling through the letter box, peeking in windows, speaking to
neighbours etc?
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't allowed
to exercise common sense, they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal proceedings.
On 20 Jan 2024 at 18:01:50 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2024 in message <l12aseFi6l9U3@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his >>>father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the >>>social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child. >>>The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should >>>the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must >>>call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out >>>for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of >>>violence
from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social >>>services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone >>>parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or aortic >>>aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder. Their >>>young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death. Why >>>should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media and >>>distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because the >>>child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty, perhaps, >>>than
an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP benefits are cancelled >>>and who then starves to death in his flat.
Is this not a case where the social worker should have exercised some >>common sense? Accepting I don't know what he/she did is it not a question >>of calling through the letter box, peeking in windows, speaking to >>neighbours etc?
Do you actually know whether the social worker did any or all of those >things?
Perhaps that will be an issue in the enquiry.
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the >social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social >services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone >parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
Is this not a case where the social worker should have exercised some
common sense? Accepting I don't know what he/she did is it not a question
of calling through the letter box, peeking in windows, speaking to
neighbours etc?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 16:32:14 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the
social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social
services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone
parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
I think this all has to be seen in the context of underresouced and underfunded public services.
The Metropolitan Police have declared that they won't attend mental
health crises any more because it is taking up too much time away from chasing criminals. (Has that come into effect yet?) Did they know that
this call from Social Services differed from the usual mental health
call?
Meanwhile, it has been reported that most of the 20,000 "extra"
police officers recruited since 25,000 police officers were dismissed
because of austerity cuts, are working in back-office jobs because the
police haven't been given back the funding for the back office jobs.
So even if the police service had wanted to make a visit, who were
they going to take away from what kind of work to do it? You really
couldn't make it up.
I have friends who are ex social workers. The reasons they are ex are
pretty much the same reasons there are so many ex probation officers
these days: the service has been the equivalent of Greylingised, is underfunded and underresourced.
I believe that in better days social workers would have had a caseload
of, say, eight per day, each of which could have been dealt with
properly with satisfactory results for the client within a normal
working day. I would not be surprised if this unfortunate social
worker had a case-load of up to thirty per day and was working 70-hour
weeks to try and keep up. If they had decided to stay at the premises
for the whole morning/afternoon/whatever and apply pressure on the police/fire service/property managers/whatever to gain access, might
we not be reading about other people in their care who battered their
child out of frustration/died/overdosed/whatever because they didn't
receive the healing visit they were depending on? And of course if
this social worker resigns or is sacked, their caseload is just going
to be shared amongst her former colleagues and they will have maybe
32-34 visits a day to complete.
In summary, I think Bronson Batterby is an absolute tragedy but it is
a tragedy which was waiting to happen to someone, somewhere. And it is
still out there waiting...
Nick
A two year old child is found dead in his home next to the body of his
father who had earlier died of a heart attack.
The Press seems to think that this is another major scandal whereby the
social workers or the police are to blame for not protecting the child.
The social worker was due to call at the house and got no reply. Should
the social worker have remained there and demanded that the police must
call and break the door down? What if the father and child had gone out
for the day? There is no suggestion that the child was at risk of
violence from the father.
Surely such tragedies must occur regularly, regardless of whether social
services have the child on their books as a child at risk.
There must be numerous lone parents who have very young children, lone
parents who could collapse with a heart attack or diabetic coma or
aortic aneurism, or might electrocute themselves or fall from a ladder.
Their young child might be unable to get help and might starve to death.
Why should this "heartbreaking" story take up so much time in the media
and distract attention from more important stories? Is it just because
the child looks particularly pretty, in the photos? More pretty,
perhaps, than an adult with mental health difficulties whose DWP
benefits are cancelled and who then starves to death in his flat.
The concern is over the fact that the police were informed on day zero and day >3 and did not apparently take action on either occasion. Day zero I agree is >reasonable, but should anything have been done on day 3? Note also that the >family must have been vulnerable in some way to have attracted SS attention, >and the social worker had made the appointment for day zero the previous week, >so no holiday was presumably planned. The father was known to be in poor >health.
It seems reasonable to me to investigate and discuss whether anything should >have been done better, even if the answer turns out to be no.
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't
allowed to exercise common sense,
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal >proceedings.
I think this all has to be seen in the context of underresouced and underfunded public services.
The Metropolitan Police have declared that they won't attend mental
health crises any more because it is taking up too much time away from chasing criminals. (Has that come into effect yet?) Did they know that
this call from Social Services differed from the usual mental health
call? Meanwhile, it has been reported that most of the 20,000 "extra"
police officers recruited since 25,000 police officers were dismissed
because of austerity cuts, are working in back-office jobs because the
police haven't been given back the funding for the back office jobs.
So even if the police service had wanted to make a visit, who were
they going to take away from what kind of work to do it?
You really
couldn't make it up.
In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on Sat,
20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't
allowed to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal
proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be
exercised. Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
Perhaps they [the police] could spend less time investigating people who teach their dogs to make Nazi salutes or who chant stupid songs at
football matches; or prosecuting people who do 23mph in one of the new 20mph zones.
You really couldn't make it up.
Many people feel that about the way law enforcement has gone in the past ten years.
In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on Sat,
20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't allowed >>to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal >>proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly >entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be exercised. >Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
On 22/01/2024 in message <O7qjWXztukrlFAFO@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on
Sat, 20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't >>>allowed to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal >>>proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly >>entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be
exercised. Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
It seems to me that further reduces peoples' ability to exercise common >sense. Rule 1 should always say something like "if these rules inhibit
you from doing what seems in the circumstances to be appropriate then
ignore them".
On 22/01/2024 in message <O7qjWXztukrlFAFO@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on
Sat, 20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't
allowed to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal
proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly
entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be
exercised. Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
It seems to me that further reduces peoples' ability to exercise common sense. Rule 1 should always say something like "if these rules inhibit
you from doing what seems in the circumstances to be appropriate then
ignore them".
On 25/01/2024 13:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 22/01/2024 in message <O7qjWXztukrlFAFO@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on Sat, >>>20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't >>>>allowed to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal >>>>proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly >>>entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be exercised. >>>Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
It seems to me that further reduces peoples' ability to exercise common >>sense. Rule 1 should always say something like "if these rules inhibit
you from doing what seems in the circumstances to be appropriate then >>ignore them".
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men..."
On 25/01/2024 in message <uou6gl$2d097$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
On 25/01/2024 13:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 22/01/2024 in message <O7qjWXztukrlFAFO@perry.uk> Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <xn0oh23p41lhkai002@news.individual.net>, at 18:01:50 on Sat, >>>> 20 Jan 2024, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> remarked:
To me one of the great issues with modern society is people aren't
allowed to exercise common sense,
It's often called "discretion".
they have to adhere strictly to rules at risk of their jobs/legal
proceedings.
The people writing the rules in their nice comfy office are perfectly
entitled to include a list of scenarios were discretion can be exercised. >>>> Indeed, I wrote one such policy during Q2 last year.
It seems to me that further reduces peoples' ability to exercise common
sense. Rule 1 should always say something like "if these rules inhibit
you from doing what seems in the circumstances to be appropriate then
ignore them".
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men..."
Trouble is in the current climate I think people are scared of breaking rules.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:43:00 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,932 |
| Posted today: | 1 |