Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: feeutfo on 15 November 2008, 09:23:13
-
dont agree myself obviously,never been one to stick my head in the sand but 2 to 1 then fair enough. Not having all the facts has never been an issue before. As you wish, deleted...
-
Not a subject suitable for this forum, too emotional, too many comments without the facts, do not go there, oofers have rightly not posted on this subject. In drink you have, suggest you pull it. >:(
don't see why this subject should not be discussed here, its on the news & in the papers or are current affairs off limits.
-
I don't accept that this subject should be taboo.
It is all over the papers and on the news every night.
In my opinion it is a subject that can be discussed ....the same as any other.
I feel sure that there is strong opinion on this sad incident.....in one way or another.
-
Whilst it is obviously a very tragic event, i too was surprised at the earlier 'we wont talk about that on here' type reply to the thread starter, as mentioned, its out in the news and there are facts to the case now too.....
May his little poor soul rest in peace
-
I heard this in the radio last night and just read the BBC news atricle.
I didn't see the original post so I'm not sure what was said or how it came across - therefore I can't form an opinion of whether I think Mike was right or wrong in wanting the thread pulled.
What I can say, is that, given this is clearly in all national news, there is no problem with us all offering condolences for a very sad and tragic loss.
RIP
-
with the exception of this thread i have generally not read about this.....
Not because i don't want to, more because i don't want to know how this little life was ended.
I'm not trying to put my head in the sand, its just that it is so abhorrent i cant bear thinking about it
-
with the exception of this thread i have generally not read about this.....
Not because i don't want to, more because i don't want to know how this little life was ended.
I'm not trying to put my head in the sand, its just that it is so abhorrent i cant bear thinking about it
My original point was roughly, i could not find the words ? What can you say... really what can you say. I was asking along the lines, can anyone else find the words, as mine fail me...
The point really is, that something MUST be said/done. Maybe not here, but somewhere, and not just in the first instance but in the second as well. 60 visits from social services...really really really is beyond all else. Mike is right, we dont have the facts, but we do have it on the news. I wonder if you dont want to think about the subject, ok fair enough, but maybe dont come in for a chat about it perhaps?
I had 2 pints and came home with a burger and chips last night, put the news on and could not eat it after seeing this story. Anger, upset, etc. For the first time in my life i had nothing... So i suppose, Mike and Skruntie have a point, nothing to say, then say nothing? Sorry i dont agree on this one. I just dont know how to/cant express it... Maybe someone can? Without putting your self in the mad house...
-
Baby P is a very sad story.
As is the case of the 21 year old mother who killed her two children yesterday.
She has since been sectioned under the mental health act.
This woman clearly needs help and not punishment in my opinion.
I feel that we should feel free to discuss both of these cases on this forum......tragic though they are. :-/ :-/
-
It's totally breaked up, unfortunately ths is the world we live in where there are people in communities that do these sort of thing to young children >:(..........personally the government should bring back the death penalty for sad f*cks that can take lifes from young kids.
I have no time for people of that sort, including paedophiles >:( >:(
And yes that does mean Gary Glitter aswell >:(
-
It's totally breaked up, unfortunately ths is the world we live in where there are people in communities that do these sort of thing to young children >:(..........personally the government should bring back the death penalty for sad f*cks that can take lifes from young kids.
I have no time for people of that sort, including paedophiles >:( >:(
And yes that does mean Gary Glitter aswell >:(
i agree, i think some cases go beyond the penalty of imprisonment. what annoys me is the do gooders always protecting them and making excuses for them >:( >:(
-
I've been too busy with work etc. to follow this story, just bits that SWMBO has told me. We brought a paper in Asda today and I've just sat and read it. I am utterly heartbroken for this poor child! I'm glad that he is now out of pain but I can't even imagine how horrific it was for him throughout. I work with children up to the age of 11 and quite a few are on the 'at risk' register but words just fail me in this case. I think the social services and the parents/lodgers have a lot to answer for!!!
-
I think the social services and the parents/lodgers have a lot to answer for!!!
That gets the UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD from me........
-
I think the social services and the parents/lodgers have a lot to answer for!!!
That gets the UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD from me........
I was holding back :y
-
let it go people. none of us were there so none of know the facts. all the finger pionting and name calling wont solve anything.
-
with the exception of this thread i have generally not read about this.....
Not because i don't want to, more because i don't want to know how this little life was ended.
I'm not trying to put my head in the sand, its just that it is so abhorrent i cant bear thinking about it
My original point was roughly, i could not find the words ? What can you say... really what can you say. I was asking along the lines, can anyone else find the words, as mine fail me...
The point really is, that something MUST be said/done. Maybe not here, but somewhere, and not just in the first instance but in the second as well. 60 visits from social services...really really really is beyond all else. Mike is right, we dont have the facts, but we do have it on the news. I wonder if you dont want to think about the subject, ok fair enough, but maybe dont come in for a chat about it perhaps?
I had 2 pints and came home with a burger and chips last night, put the news on and could not eat it after seeing this story. Anger, upset, etc. For the first time in my life i had nothing... So i suppose, Mike and Skruntie have a point, nothing to say, then say nothing? Sorry i dont agree on this one. I just dont know how to/cant express it... Maybe someone can? Without putting your self in the mad house...
Is exactly my point in posting without knowing the facts >:(
-
well, as said we dont have all the facts, but i think you have to assume some mental instabillity? Or what ever the reason social services knew about it, must have, you dont get 60 visits for fun. Are they equally accountable? And getting paid for it? A lucid intelligent trained official with power to remove the child for his own safety,had sixty opportunities to do so and failed..add that in to the mix...
-
let it go people. none of us were there so none of know the facts. all the finger pionting and name calling wont solve anything.
What are you on about???
The facts are available and are now well known.
People are free to express their feelings for this so please stand back and let them if they want to............
-
well, as said we dont have all the facts, but i think you have to assume some mental instabillity? Or what ever the reason social services knew about it, must have, you dont get 60 visits for fun. Are they equally accountable? And getting paid for it? A lucid intelligent trained official with power to remove the child for his own safety,had sixty opportunities to do so and failed..add that in to the mix...
THEY DID NOT GET 60 VISITS FROM SOCIAL WORKERS >:(
-
Must have missed the finger pointing and name calling ::).....the fact of the matter is the kid did not commit suicide.
-
Despite not being a family man I am a Dad & was a single Dad for a few years & lived the family life with a few ex's. Although this was'nt for me i enjoy my friends kid's company when they visit (cos they go again!!!) but i know i'm not alone in being appalled by a 17month old child with a broken back. I did'nt see the original thread that was pulled, neither do i know who wanted it pulled but this can put a lump in the hardest mans throat. I won't dwell on the subject suffice to say it's beyond any normal persons comprehension.
-
let it go people. none of us were there so none of know the facts. all the finger pionting and name calling wont solve anything.
What are you on about???
The facts are available and are now well known.
People are free to express their feelings for this so please stand back and let them if they want to............
what are the facts then mate ???
-
Well said.
I have a son of 2 yrs age and it is beyond me what has happened. Simple as that.
-
Must have missed the finger pointing and name calling ::).....the fact of the matter is the kid did not commit suicide.
I am not suggesting he did, and heads should roll but just remember he was seen by a paediatrician 2 days before he died.
I vowed not to post on this, and I am saying no more. :-X
-
let it go people. none of us were there so none of know the facts. all the finger pionting and name calling wont solve anything.
What are you on about???
The facts are available and are now well known.
People are free to express their feelings for this so please stand back and let them if they want to............
what are the facts then mate ???
The facts are available in the reports via Haringey Councils website and are far too long for me to rewrite here.
If you want the facts go and read them.............
-
Well said.
I have a son of 2 yrs age and it is beyond me what has happened. Simple as that.
i have a son of 3yrs and a daughter of 4 weeks. doesnt explain the facts of the case of baby p does it.
-
Well said.
I have a son of 2 yrs age and it is beyond me what has happened. Simple as that.
i have a son of 3yrs and a daughter of 4 weeks. doesnt explain the facts of the case of baby p does it.
Like I said, go and read the facts............. and whyare you trying to start an argument on a thread like this.............???????????
I will post no more regarding this matter.
-
just some of the facts for you.
At a meeting of council officials on July 25 last year, a lawyer advised social workers that the evidence Baby P was being abused was not strong enough to warrant removing the child from his mother.
On August 3, Baby P was found dead. One lawyer has been given a written warning, along with two social workers.
John Suddaby, Haringey's head of legal services, admitted last night to The Sunday Telegraph that it was "of concern" that such advice had been given.
At the time, Mr Suddaby was deputy head of legal services, acting up in the top role following the departure of his predecessor. Following Baby P's death he was promoted to the top job in March this year, on an annual salary of £120,000.
He is the latest figure at the beleaguered council to be accused of serious failings. It can also be revealed that concerns that social workers were failing to protect children in Haringey, north London, were raised a year before Baby P was tortured and killed.
Residents told councillors as far back as 2006 that they believed children were in danger and that they feared a repeat of the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, who was tortured to death in Haringey in 2000.
A report into Baby P's death overseen by Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey's head of children's services who has come under intense pressure to resign over the latest tragedy, has not been published in full.
The executive summary, which was disclosed last week, suggests that:
:: One of the factors in Baby P's death was a delay in holding legal meetings and in providing legal advice on whether social workers could justify moves to have the toddler removed from his mother
:: Legal advice was given by recently-recruited lawyers whose work was not checked by a senior member of staff
:: The council was short of experienced specialist child protection lawyers and did not have systems in place to obtain advice from outside firms.
Asked why his team advised social workers that the threshold for initiating care proceedings for Baby P had not been met, Mr Suddaby, a barrister who previously worked as a trade union official, said: "That's obviously of concern and is one of the things that will be looked at."
But the lawyer, who lives in a 1930s semi-detached house in the north London suburb of Muswell Hill -- a few miles from the house in which Baby P was killed -- refused to comment further on the case.
Six days after his department advised that Baby P should not be taken into care - and three days before the little boy was killed - Mr Suddaby accepted a "badge of quality" from the Law Society on behalf of Haringey's legal department, which council leader George Meehan said meant the team was "among the best in the country".
In his spare time the lawyer sings for the Crouch End Festival Chorus, a leading amateur choir which sang with rock band Oasis at this year's BBC Electric Proms in Camden, north London.
Baby P, who was 17 months old, suffered more than 50 injuries while living with his mother, 27, her boyfriend,32, and their lodger Jason Owen, 36, despite being on the "at risk" register and receiving 60 visits from health and social workers. The three adults will be sentenced next month for allowing or causing the child's death, and have been told they face a "significant term in prison".
Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, has ordered an inquiry into the affair but opposition politicians warned that any investigation should carefully examine any failings by Mr Suddaby's department.
Michael Gove, the shadow children's secretary, said: "We know there are serious question marks over the council lawyers' handling of this issue. The public will be rightly concerned that the man who led Haringey's legal response to the Baby P case has subsequently been promoted."
Lynne Featherstone, the local Liberal Democrat MP, said: "The legal department has got off lightly so far in terms of scrutiny. It is clear there have been failings in that department."
A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokeswoman said: "The remit is very wide and it will look at everything the serious case review has brought up."
On Friday more than 60 Haringey headteachers joined forces to write a letter in support of Ms Shoesmith, describing her as "an outstanding public servant" and suggesting that children in the borough would lose one of their most "committed champions" if she were made to resign.
However, fears raised by residents about standards at Haringey council were so credible that in October 2006 a member of the council's cross-party Overview and Scrutiny Committee committee, Martin Newton, requested a full review of child protection.
Yet the Labour-controlled authority took eight months before deciding to carry out a feasibility study into whether a review was even necessary.
In January this year -- five months after Baby P died -- Ms Shoesmith recommended that a full review was not necessary. The committee rejected that decision but the review has still not been published.
Mr Newton, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: "We raised serious concerns that the recommendations from the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie had not been implemented and that children were at risk of abuse."
He was prompted to act after his wife Gail Engert, also a Haringey councillor, received letters and other approaches from residents expressing concern that social workers were failing to identify cases of parental abuse -- and also removing children from families unnecessarily.
Ms Ingert said: "The sources were credible. The only way we, as the opposition, could get to the truth of this was to ask for a review, but those in power kicked it into the long grass - and it is clear now that the concerns were very real."
Families said they had been victimised after making complaints. One parent said she was forced to resign as a school governor after making complaints
-
well, as said we dont have all the facts, but i think you have to assume some mental instabillity? Or what ever the reason social services knew about it, must have, you dont get 60 visits for fun. Are they equally accountable? And getting paid for it? A lucid intelligent trained official with power to remove the child for his own safety,had sixty opportunities to do so and failed..add that in to the mix...
THEY DID NOT GET 60 VISITS FROM SOCIAL WORKERS >:(
does it really matter how many visits were carried out, its the system that let this poor kid down & not for the first time
-
well, as said we dont have all the facts, but i think you have to assume some mental instabillity? Or what ever the reason social services knew about it, must have, you dont get 60 visits for fun. Are they equally accountable? And getting paid for it? A lucid intelligent trained official with power to remove the child for his own safety,had sixty opportunities to do so and failed..add that in to the mix...
THEY DID NOT GET 60 VISITS FROM SOCIAL WORKERS >:(
how long you have you worked for social services in relation to baby p's case mate.
-
Saw ms shoesmith being interviewed on tv about the case,I thought her attitude was utterly disgraceful.
-
There are glaring faults in any system that allows a catastrophe such as this to happen.
What is to be avoided, anywhere, in my most humble opinion, is to allow oneself to be 'persuaded' by any distilled reporting such as prevalant in the media over this heartbreaking case.
The reality of matters surrounding this will, undoubtedly, be subject to examination to the most minutae of standards. Irrespective of the strength of feeling, here and elswhere, nothing will bring such a wanton waste of life back into being.
Brutal though it may sound, there is no point in taking the moral high ground on the matter without possession of ALL facts.
Whilst discussion and debate on anything is good, the strength of feeling that this case has, does, and will generate in time to come should perhaps not be discussed to any great depth here, such that entrenched viewpoints encourage points of view that evoke no return once reached......