Rest in Peace Baby P

I totally agree with Clairesy, torture them (those b*****ds) now, but slowly, and the same to all those who hurts, rapes, all kinds of atrocities.

Calcites, I am not off base as you call it, I just happen to disagree with your suggestion that the social worker involved in this case should be prosecuted as an accessory to a murder which is a complete nonesense. I notice you did not say you were employed 'as a social worker' but as some one familiar with the social services department. You also agreed with me that social workers are over worked, underpaid and working under stressful conditions. However I do agree with you that there are also the odd one or two emplyees in almost every job or vocation who are unsuited to their particular type of work. It is also possible that the employee involved in this Baby P case was one such person, of that I have no such knowledge, but I must reiterate that the social workers I do know personally are educated, hard working, considerate and very responsible people and should not all be unjustly tarnished in the manner they are so often potrayed. In the case of Baby P the monsters involved in the terrible ill treatment and murder of this beautiful little boy deserve to be severely punished for their actions and were I to have my way they would be hung, drawn and quartered as was the ultimate punishment in years gone by, however, as we all know such barbarism does not happen in this so called civilized society. But going back to our disagreement over Social workers, I agree that if following an internal inquiry any social worker or workers found to have acted negligently should be dismissed from their positions, and should it also be proven that their actions have directly or in any way contributed to this little childs death they should be prosecuted for their actions, this is of course something that would be determined by the police and public prosecutor, not the public at large. This is not the time to go around accusing some social worker of being an 'accessory to murder' as you have so freely suggested, indeed I have no doubt in my mind that those people who were involved in this case are already in a state of despair and sorrow for this poor little child.
Alroy.

Sorry, but I'll stick by my guns - there was a terrible failure by social services to investigate fully this case - when there are over 60 calls about potential child abuse - the worker(s) obviously missed the tell tale signs of abuse. Don't care much for your suggestion of an internal investigation - that's like asking the fox to take care of the chickens. A governmental external review would in my opinion be better.

I am also concerned because a whistleblower who expressed her concerns about this family was ignored. We should agree to disagree on this case and that's fine. I believe companies/agencies get away with too much. If one benefit occurs from this tragic case - i.e. social workers in collaboration with the medical staff start looking at potential victims more closely, then baby P's death will not have been in vain. If on the other hand, nothing is done - then more innocent children will be abused to death and that in my mind is the most tragic of tragedies.

I agree with Calcite and Diane over this. If Baby P had been visited by social services 60 times before he died...then how come he was left there to be killed. The trouble with the vast majority of social workers is they seem to never be able to see something when it stares them right in the face. They are too much into parents rights instead of childrens rights.
I believe the social service involved should be held accountable for their lack of action. After all, if they had acted then Baby P would still be alive and hopefully fostered into a loving family enviroment.
Heads should roll over this... in my opinion.

According to the disturbing article in the NOTW report, when the last visit by the social worker was done, the baby could no longer walk, as his back was already broken. He was also beat up around the head and had the broken ribs. The social worker only took a brief look at him while he was in his pram, in his own house (which should have set off alarm bells then and there). He was in the pram because he couldnt walk so had to be sat up to hide it from the social worker.

The social worker looked at him (covered in chocolate) decided he was ok, he was wheeled into another room and that was it. He died a few days later from horrific injuries, many of which existed on that day. Same as for the paediatrician. He couldnt walk anymore, yet had been able to walk previously. He was also crying all the time from the pain. I dont know how the paediatrician missed that his legs no longer worked. My paediatrician always made the kids crawl or walk, and moved their legs around to check no hip problems. If the paediatrician had done that, Baby P would have screamed.

Apparently Baby P smiled at the social worker during that last visit. But that is still no excuse for not checking on his progress. Surely he should have been viewed for a short period of time (lets say longer than 2 minutes) and out of his pram to see how his progress was. Why else would the house get a visit? So lets forget the other fifty or so visits, the last one is bad enough.

I dont think the social worker should be charged but he/she should be removed from working with children, perhaps only allowed to work with adults from now on. There was a fundamental failure of the system for this child, by numerous people. How can this happen? He was seen by people and they knew he was at risk but then missed all of the signs, and there were many of them.

Even the little tykes father said that he used to scream when he dropped him back to his mother. He was terrified and didnt want to go. I wouldnt have left him then. And at the least would have taken him to be privately assessed for abuse. That is a good option, as it provides evidence needed to put a rocket up the department. And once the father had evidence, he had no need to take the child back to the mother. But it didnt occur to him, or to any other members of the family as to what was happening to Baby P. If it had, I have no doubt they would have taken action. I just wish the 15 yo witness had got the courage to phone the police in those last few days. She knew the baby was dying (as did the parents) but she was too scared to do anything. She is another victim of the abuse as well. How many other victims were in that house?

And I also wanted to say about the crap that children are better off with their parents. Only if they are not in danger. But how can they be better off with drug addicted parents who cannot even remember to feed them, let alone bath or change them, or educate them. The real issue is that there is a lack of long term placements, not because there are not people willing to do it (this is an option for potential adoptive parents) but because the children are not put into long term placement until after a long period and are therefore subject to the abuse of the parents up to this time, or are shopped from house to house while the department messes about. It is my opinion that if abuse is found, that the children should be removed and put into long term placement with a single family, while the parents are re-educated. And the parents should have some involvement with the children but only under supervised visits. The failures of the system here in Australia all have been with children known to the system, who have been left with their parents when they were at very serious risk. There are also terrible stories of children taken from their parents over and over and then passed back to them, all the time the child/children are missing out on a loving home, when they could be put into permanent placement. I personally know of three families who want to foster children but only want permanent placements, and cannot get children. So the children that are in need are passed to short term care families, and move around and suffer. I dont doubt that it is harmful to a child to be moved from house to house. But this wouldnt be the case with more long term placements occurring much more quickly in the process, rather than as a last option. At least then, if the parents are rehabilitated, they can get children that have been properly looked after, not ones hurt further by the system. But I also doubt that the parents who harm their children can be rehabilitated. Also, if the child was put in permanet placement, they could maintain a relationship with their parents, but one that wouldnt harm the children.

Enough of my soap box.

I wish I had never read the article in NOTW, but I am glad I did. I didnt know evil like that walked the earth. But it is taking its toll on me, I had nightmares last night, and Baby P is on my mind constantly.

So please forgive me, this will be my last post on Baby P. Baby P is approx the same age as my son (or would be if he were still alive). Each time I look at my son, I hug him, wishing that Baby P could feel that hug. I can do nothing for Baby P,but I can love and protect my own son (and daughter).

Rest in Peace little Baby P. Rest in the arms of the angels. Know the peace and love that was missing in your life. You are in pain no more. My prayers are with you, as are my thoughts.

This is getting more and more upsetting. On the one hand, I agree with Royal, that collectivly at least, social services sometimes get the rough end of the pineapple, and are too quickly tarred with the same brush. Most of them are decent, caring hardworking people. But on an individual basis, the social worker in the baby P case was, at best, negligent in their duty, and at worst culpable in some way or form. One or two visits that failed to spot abuse could be a mistake, human error. But 60? Sorry, there is something seriously wrong there. I don't know what the answer is, but it probably shouldn't involve being charged. But it SHOULD involve dismissal, and someone higher up the chain should also get some sort of severe arse kicking, because the man in charge is always responsible for the people beneath him. As for the 'at risk' register point made earlier, there shouldn't BE an 'at risk' list, because NO child should ever BE at risk. EVER.

Mum21 wrote:I agree with Calcite and Diane over this. If Baby P had been visited by social services 60 times before he died...then how come he was left there to be killed. The trouble with the vast majority of social workers is they seem to never be able to see something when it stares them right in the face. They are too much into parents rights instead of childrens rights.
I believe the social service involved should be held accountable for their lack of action. After all, if they had acted then Baby P would still be alive and hopefully fostered into a loving family enviroment.
Heads should roll over this... in my opinion.

Thats right mum....

a mum who ignores a child's abuse at the hands of their father can get arrested for allowing the abuse to occur.....then why the hell shouldn't a social worker be arrested and investigated for ignoring it to.IMO the abuse was most definitely ignored. If i walked into a house to check a child...then then check the child i would do. You cannot assume all is fine.In my computer class there was a woman who i became chatty with,we weren't friends as such but often engaged in a conversation during the class.More like acquaintances rather than friends.She seemed fine.

I was told about 3 weeks after she started the class that she had been having difficulties recently because the social services had taken her children from her.When i asked why i was told she had been beating them.Her children were all under 10 years old...the youngest being a 2 year old little girl and I was told she had hit this child about the head if she misbehaved etc. I didn't like what i heard and immediately stopped all convo's with her .She knew why.i didn't have to explain to her,she knew as soon as she saw me being taken to the side by one of the others in the class that i was being informed of what she had done.

The social services took her 2 older children from her and placed them into foster care....the 2 year old girl who was also being abused was placed back with her???I think they were trying to help her to become a better mum and to not have to break up her relationship with this child...the older children didn't want to go back and were being cared for by there foster families. About 5 weeks later i was taken to the side again and told that she had once again had her 2 year old daughter taken away from her...this time for good. The little girl had apparently run passed her and was making a loud noise so in order to silence her the woman slapped her full pelt across the head...knocking her from her feet and she banged her head on a chair.The social services knew they had no option then,there was no way they could help her and give her better parenting skills.

My question is though...while they were trying to give this tw@t better parenting skills,why did they allow her to practice on her own daughter??IMO you cannot put a child into the care of someone who is mistreating them...you cannot proceed to try and make them a better mummy/daddy by allowing them to have their child whilst you try to show them how to look after them.

You see the social services dont like taking children from their homes...they only do so at a very last resort...if they can somehow mend whats gone wrong first...then they will do that before 'breaking up' the family net. BUT.......Why is it that they fail sooo many times to distinguish between a parent who might just need extra help....and a parent who is harming their child behind your back.The child is put onto an at risk register and monitored closely by social services???OKAY.............................

Heres another story for you... a boy who grew up on the at risk register.
All the while he was being mistreated really badly at home.But because there were no marks,no obvious evidence to show that he had been harmed...it wasn't spotted. He had a life of hell being knocked about and made to sit in a straight upright position against the wall.He would be sat on a naughty chair for about 4 hours and not allowed to move????Now we have all got a naughty step or chair...nothing wrong with that.BUT FOUR HOURS??? He was regularly left alone while his mum went out on the razz and would lay in bed and listen to her screaming abuse at him when she returned home.His social worker would chat with him and ask him how things were at home and he would reply......''good,things are really good now'' He would tell them how happy he was and how he loved his mummy etc...and deep down he was screaming and needing help.

The thing is...a child wont tell on a parent if they don't think they CAN.Some children,(most anyway)...love their parents to bits even if they abuse them.Bizarre aint it...but when you grow up being abused that's all you know...it can make you soo insecure that your actually non functional without the abuser being in your life. And just because a child cry's and clings to their favorite person (mummy/daddy) it doesn't mean that mummy/daddy is the best thing since sliced bread.It could just appear that way.

IMO asking a child how things are is ridiculous.You can ask them how THEY feel etc...but there aint no point in trying to ask them how things are at home..the answer would probably be .....'fine'

its the job of a social worker or other professional to find out if this child is being mistreated.They failed baby p.

his mummy failed him...his step dad failed him....the lodger failed him.....the doctor failed him...the health visitor failed him and the social services failed him..this country's crap system as failed this darling little boy.And now he is dead. He laid in his cot and died in agony alone while the social services...doctors mummy and step dad...all ignored his cries..the social worker said....'' he was a little cranky today.''????????????????????? I bet he was...his back was fu@king broken.I would love to see how cranky she would be if she was paralysed by f@cking pain and fear...dying in agony and ignored.................. smeared with chocolate to hid the abuse and given no attention or help from ALLLLLLL 60 separate visits to your home.YES THEY FAILED THIS CHILD........YES THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES.THEY SHOULD FIRST BE STRUCK OFF FOR LIFE AND THEN CHARGED WITH SEVERE NEGLIGENCE AND EVEN JAILED FOR THE PART THEY PLAYED IN THIS CHILD'S DEATH.

If i was driving my car.... not taking care....... and as a result killed someone...... i could get done for manslaughter for dangerous driving.......................
they should be held accountable to.They have not done their jobs and a baby is now dead.They are guilty of severe negligence at the very least. They should never be allowed to continue in their line of work as they are clearly incompetent at it.

I feel it is rather pointless my persuing this discussion any further and shall make this my last comment on this very emotive subject. I have discussed this very sad case with my social worker friends each of whom are very saddened by the this terrible case of child abuse and murder. As much as they are prepared to talk about various cases in general they obviously cannot discuss any individual cases and certainly never divlulge names or their circumstances. However, they have told me of instances where a lot of time and effort has been involved in Social Services taking the parents of vulnerable children to court in order place them in care and the courts in the belief the child should remain with the mother have refused the Social Services action and awarded custody of the child to remain with the parent or parents. Neither Social Services nor the courts like to remove a child from its mother except under exceptional circumstances and where they have little or no alternative! The discussion and differing views we have now encountered involving this particular Baby P case reminds me of a similar comparison concerning another "child neglect" case, that of Madeleine McCann having been left unatended by the parents whilst on holiday, and an ongoing disagreement between ourselves and the Anti's who in their strongly worded posts have insisted Kate and Gerry should be prosecuted for wilful neglect having left their children alone in their holiday apartment, and the view by those of us who believe that Kate and Gerry have suffered enough already through the loss of their child and it would serve no moral purpose their being dragged through the courts on a neglect charge. Here we seem to have, as in this case a number of people baying for the blood of a social worker whose neglect they suggest contributed to the death of Baby P and yet on the other hand have for the past year and a half condemned those heartless uncaring Anti's of being without sympathy or human compassion even though as far as any of us know Madeleine may also be dead! Isn't this a sort of hypocracy, sympathy on the one hand in the case of Kate and Gerry McCann and condemnation for some unfortunate social worker who has not yet been proven guilty of any neglect but in one incident the sad death of a child and in the other the possible death of a child?
As I have already said I abolutely despise the mother and step father of Baby P for what they have done and am desperately sad for Kate, Gerry and little Madeleine.
Alroy.

It would seem the pendulum swings back and forth in regards to the courts - the courts were deemed to be too harsh in their decisions for taking children away from their parents (and in some cases, I would tend to agree) but now they seem to have swung the other way - supporting the right of the child to live with their parent(s) - even if the parents are abusing their children.

I think it is a good time for the courts/medical/social workers, etc. to review where we are at with child protection. It might be a good time to hire more social workers /doctors and children advocates to deal with the rising child abuse cases. I don't even know if Baby P. was seen more than one social worker? Not that it matters - even if seen by more than one worker, they missed the tell tale signs. I really believe agencies will review their procedures for dealing with reported abused children and it will be more difficult for the abuser to cover up their crime. I believe that it is also a good opportunity for the judicial system and the medical staff to review the problems, possible solutions to avoid this from happening to another child. At least I hope so...

At the risk of sounding like an old crone living in the past .. it's all to do with standards, procedures and training & how important common sense is (you have it, or you don't). Once all this is compromised, short-cut and ignored, the centre will not hold and it all falls to bits. Witness the McCann's story .. this applies to the police involved who were, at best, utterly useless. Some so-called experts(!) in any field aren't worth anything if they are not properly trained and also lack basic common sense .. & all of this is vital when dealing with children. Standards .. sigh .. gone down the drain maybe because fools are hiring other fools in the first place. And whistle-blowers should be strongly protected by the law and not made to suffer for trying to speak out and change what is clearly wrong. But, as in the business world too, the whistle-blowers can lose everything they have and suffer as well .. which is why too many people will look the other way & hope "someone else" will take action.

Oh .. I am rambling here, but this is really getting me down.

God keep your soul into His sacred hands for all eternity Baby P. Rest in peace Baby P .

i hope that.........Tracey Connolly,Steven Barker and Jason Owen get beaten about for the rest of their lives for what they done to baby p.

RIP little angel :sendingulove: :sendingulove:

this is the evil faces of those who tormented little baby p
the government might very well wish to try and conceal their identities...but the public wont...this is going about on face book...please use this picture and pass it on of them.Let the world know their twisted faces and names.

Tracey Connolly,Steven Barker and Jason Owen

the dark headed guy is the peadophile lodger,the other guy was baby p's killer....and his mum???she was the one who failed to protect her darling son from his plight. She is a twisted b/tch,i hope they all get their just deserts.

our government failed to protect this little child...along with many other children and adults to...they fail them everyday...yet they proceed to protect the identities of people like these three sick twisted b@st@ards.

why????.because they have rights.......they have the right to be protected by our government....the same rights that they fail to give to soo many other innocent poeple...they give to these twisted folk.

RIP baby p XXX sweet little angel.

Agree. The whole world must now know the faces of those 3 b*****ds and one *****.

Today, the Sun newspapers says: Truth on tot´s funeral: Tears In Heaven: Clapton song at Baby P farewell.

Rest in peace Baby P, for all eternity, God keep your soul into God´s sacred hands for all eternity. Amen.

Justice for Baby P: Sign the Sun´s petition in the paper or at: www.thesun.co.uk

This is a gut wrenching tribute for baby p.. tears in heaven.

RIP little man. No more hurt now sweetie






:sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove: :sendingulove:

Baby P, your lovely soul is now in Heaven, and one thing is certain, Heaven has now a new Angel. The legions of Angels are now bigger with the safe arrival os Mariluz Cortés´s soul and Baby P´s soul. Rest in peace both Mariluz Cortés and Baby P. You both are now under Angels and God safe protection for all eternity. Amen.

HOW DARE THEY............................THIS AS REALLY P/SSED ME OFF IVE PUT MY REACTION IN RED SO YOU KNOW WHERE I COME IN...THIS IS UPSETTING ME...HOW DARE THEY SUGGEST THIS SH/T AFTER FAILING THIS BABY SOOOOOOOOOOO BADLY...SOOO TERRIBLY TERRIBLY BADLY. GOD BABY P I HOPE YOUR SLEEPING PEACEFUL DARLING.WE WONT LET THESE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH HURTING YOU.

The mother of the toddler, who died after suffering more than 50 injuries, cannot be named for legal reasons.(why??? we know her name its posted here..it was slipped on face book...taken down...but got copied...and we have it!)

Neither can her 32-year-old boyfriend, who was convicted - along with lodger Jason Owen, 36 - of causing or allowing the child's death. Baby P's mother pleaded guilty to the same charge.

The trio will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on December 15. The judge has already warned them to expect long prison sentences.

Baby P died in a blood-splattered cot in Haringey, north London, in August last year. Although he was on the at-risk register, numerous visits by social workers and other authorities had failed to identify the level of danger he was in.(b@stards)

Politicians have reacted angrily to claims the child's 27-year-old mother's lawyers are now preparing to invoke human rights legislation to assure her anonymity for life.(what the ***)

The Daily Mail says the mother's lawyers will argue that her life could be at risk if she is identified.(good, so it should be)

As well as a new identity, she could receive 24-hour police protection.(what like her baby boy)

The scum responsible for crimes of this nature, using them for target practice or testing new parachutes springs to mind.

- Internet vigilantes identify Baby P's mother and stepfather (thats us!! and we are not vigilantes,we are justice for baby p.... thank you very much!!!!!!)

Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said: "There is likely to be permanent hatred towards those people who are guilty of the baby's murder and for that reason I would imagine, based on past precedent, that the authorities would consider some sort of protection or fresh identity for that person. (why,they failed to protect that baby boy!)

"One of the reasons (Moors murderer) Myra Hindley was never released was because her safety outside jail could not be assured.(good enough for the b/tch)

"It's a big problem, but from the public's point of view, they are not going to be very happy about a person given special treatment and lots of money spent on them when they have committed such an evil crime." (yer you can say that again)


But he suggested that nothing needed to be done about the issue now.

"Hopefully it will be many, many years to come when these people are considered for release, if they ever are - some people would say they should never be released. ( im one of them people)

"Any suggestion that we should already be planning for release or re-accommodation and expenditure is not something that anybody should be considering at this time."

Being professional and impartial on-air while talking about his short life to social workers, MPs and child carers is difficult. When I come off-air, I sit in my car and cry. ( be truthful...its all that mattrs...stop covering the truth)

Sky News presenter Lorna Dunkley on the emotional impact of reporting on a little boy's tragic life

Another Conservative MP, Philip Davies, told the paper: "I personally find it rather offensive that the taxpayer may end up picking up a huge bill to protect this woman's human rights, given the complete disregard she showed for the human rights of her baby." ( thank you very much...my sentiments exactly...she deserves no protection at all...she failed to protect her baby boy)

The Ministry of Justice said any suggestion of anonymity for the mother was "pure speculation". The matter would be decided by the courts at a later time. (where have we heard that sh/t before?)

A spokesman said: "She's not even been sentenced yet and something like this usually comes towards the end of a person's sentence. It's not something that is imminent." (bolocks...you know you will do this for her.......if you do...........then you have once again failed that baby boy..............you have got blood on your hands imo)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/MPs-Angry-At-Talk-Of-Plans-To-Rename-Mother-Of-Baby-P-At-Taxpayer-Expense/Article/200811415159355?lpos=UK_News_News_Your_Way_Region_9&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15159355_MPs_Angry_At_Talk_Of_Plans_To_Rename_Mother_Of_Baby_P_At_Taxpayer_Expense


If these a@ssholes even contemplate protecting these 3 crazy gits then god help us as a so called civilised society. Reading that broke my frigging heart...i thought of that baby...to young to understand this...but at the same time being mistreated once again even in death now............. By his country's authorities. Im terribly p/ssed off right now...im hoping the mps that felt the same anger stamp there feet with this one.God help them if they agree to give them anonymity...god help them all.

Baby p you darling boy...you sleep tight and your country's civilised folk will fight for your rights now.God bless you sweet heart.

I watched that videoclip. I was in too minds. I have been feeling a bit down over this case, and that in addition to the tragic drowning of a father and his two sons (5 yo and 18 months) off a wharf in NSW. It was dusk, the older boy was playing with the pram (with the toddler in it) and the father was fishing, and somehow the pram went over the edge of the wharf (no railing). There was a 2m swell and the water was 5 metres deep. The father went straight in after the kids, and another fisherman went in as well. A group of lifesavers were having a meeting nearby and were there in 3 minutes (the second man's wife ran to get them). They found the second man straight away (and he was near death), but they couldnt see the kids or the father, it was too dark. They got a torch and found all three under the wharf, floating. They pulled out the kids, and got both breathing again but the damage was too great and they died later in the hospital. The father couldnt be revived. The mother of the boys has lost her sons and her fiance, while she was at work. There are no words to portray her grief. The father most likely will be found to have been wrong to have the children on the wharf, and to not have the break on on the pram. But there is no doubt of his love for his boys, he gave his life to save them.

And then on the other hand, we have the feril parents of Baby P. What sort of parent dresses up their son (and a beautiful little boy he was) for a portrait photo, then leave the poor little fella alone for hours on end, in a cot in the dark without toys. Doesnt feed him properly, and lets her boyfriend beat him to a pulp.

Here we have one extreme to another. One man who gave his life to try to save his boys, and another woman who didnt even care enough for her son to keep him safe in his own bed.

Baby P - And he is in heaven, where he knows absolute and total love, happiness and no more pain.

How I wish that this had been different and that a few months before he died, that a social worker had made the move to take him from that rat hole of a house he lived in and placed him with a family that would love and care for him.

There are organisations that exist to try to stop the abuse of children in all areas of life, including those that are not protected in their own home by their parents. Please give some thought to donating to one of these. In this way, we may not be able to help Baby P but it will help other children that are also in danger, and put them on the path to a better life.

This kinds of crimes wil not be unpunished.

Why didn´t that social worker made that move? Why was she waiting? She too is responsible for Baby P´s death.

PEDRO. I believe the social worker tried hard to get this little boy taken into care but was refused by the management. Only hearsay from the media I'm afraid, may or may not be true!
Alroy.

My friend, thank you for clarify my suspicion about the social worker. For her, the social worker, my sincere apologies. Regards. Your friend. Pedro.

I received a personal letter from my MP, Tim Yeo. It was a very nice letter.He reminded me that Ed Balls has announced an independent review. He has assured me that his party recognise that urgent action needs to be taken and they are counciling their own councilers regarding child safety concens.