pablo Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Social workers are bound to work within the parameters set by law and their institutions....do you think they don't go home wringing their hands and vowing to jack it in next day...I couldnt be a social worker..nursings bad enough...damned if you do..damned if you dont... Agreed,i have a sorta friend,helen,she packed in teaching to be a SW,some of the stuff she deals with infuriates me,i couldn't keep my temper with some of these people,i guess theres no other way to do the job than look at it in a dispassionate,pragmatic way,otherwise you couldn't do it. I think this is where some of the conflict on here comes from,to some of "us" on the outside the SW attitudes on here can come across as "uncaring",i dont think thats the case for one minute btw,but its how they have to deal with it,IE they have to park their emotions(as much as they can anyway) to be able to do the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHeart Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 just like poor care on wards...nurses, social workers and teachers are scapegoats for under funding or mismanagement of resources. Cuts to ground level staff will inevitably lead to poor standards. You can't be everything to everyone all the time..you can't spread yourself too thin...never mind though..as long as the politicians get nice biscuits with their tea and tax breaks plus great salaries and over inflation pay rises...after all...they are working for us!! All in it together...yeah right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHeart Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I think youre absolutely spot on there Pabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I think youre absolutely spot on there Pabs Whats the date?,i'll preserve that for posterity,it had to happen once Fi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 this person shouldn't be free, she should at the very least be sterilised. It's disgusting. The punishment does not fit the crime regardless on the paperwork that has been filled out, or how the law must not discriminate, a little boy was tortured to death and this woman let it happen, she clearly has no heart or empathy and for that reason she should not be released. I hope she gets the sh!t kicked out of her regularly, if the law cannot protect our children then hopefully someone else will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 this person shouldn't be free, she should at the very least be sterilised. It's disgusting. The punishment does not fit the crime regardless on the paperwork that has been filled out, or how the law must not discriminate, a little boy was tortured to death and this woman let it happen, she clearly has no heart or empathy and for that reason she should not be released. I hope she gets the sh!t kicked out of her regularly, if the law cannot protect our children then hopefully someone else will. Another one who thinks violence 'cures' violence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Another one who thinks violence 'cures' violence... I don't think it cures it, I just don't think she deserves to be free and I think she deserves an actual decent punishment. I couldn't care about curing her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 In fact actually, I understand completely that people in the know have deemed her safe but can you honestly say that you think the punishment she has had reflects the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 In fact actually, I understand completely that people in the know have deemed her safe but can you honestly say that you think the punishment she has had reflects the crime. See earlier in the thread for my views. But fantasising that she too is assaulted regularly doesn't change anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 I haven't read all of the replies in this thread, but I think the fundamental question we have to consider is 'what is/are the aim/s/purpose of the criminal justice system'? Retribution? Rehabilitation? Removal from society of people who are too dangerous to live amongst the rest of us? Each of those intended outcomes carries its own ethical dilemmas, and as far as I can see the justice system as it stands actually tries to serve all three of those aims, and therein lies some of the problems we find with individual cases. If a person is rehabilitated, a person could feasibly meet that criterion, but it may be that the other two will not be met. In which case what do we do? Do we lock people up even though their incarceration serves no useful purpose in terms of protecting the public or making them able to function in society? I'm not commenting much on this case because there is a lot of information that I do not know. Having said that, whatever the punishment, Baby P suffered a short and distressing life, and nothing in the world can undo the horror of that. I don't know what his mother thinks or feels about that now, perhaps she is now clean and in better mental health and will have to live with her actions for the rest of her life. What I do know, from colleagues of mine working in the field of child health and vulnerable adult protection is that abuse and neglect are very common, particularly in those households in which parents are addicts/substance abusers. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do sometimes wonder whether the best interests of children are served by the reluctance of child protection services to remove children early. Not that I'm criticising social workers and others, who do the best they can in often very difficult circumstances, but rather I question the wisdom of the 'system' that perpetuates the belief that biology is the key to a child's happiness at home. Personally, I think as a Society, we should be thinking very carefully about how we manage the responsibility of ensuring the safety of not just our children, but our vulnerable adults too. I think that the attention given to bemoaning the Justice system can divert our thoughts from the question of how we should/could reduce domestic abuse. Abusers are often the product of a dysfunctional lifestyle, and early identification of risk and support to reduce the risk of harm should be a focus of child protection - which should also be adequately resourced to provide the necessary services. A reactive approach is only ever going to result in a chase to catch the horse that has bolted or is in the process of doing so. If we could get services to those that are likely to need them before problems arise, maybe that would work more effectively? I don't know much about child protection, but it seems clear to me that if we are serious about it we must come up with a way of actively intervening before harm occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Ok, I wrote a big long message but it disappeared. So I'll try and remember what I was saying. For most of us who don't have the benefit of expertise and experience in this area it is appalling that this woman has been released and can walk free. I am fully aware what it is like to be bound by paperwork, criteria and checklists but I am pretty sure that most people don't see that this woman has been punished. Of course I said that I hope she gets beaten, it's because I am rightfully (IMO of course) angry that she has been released. If she is deemed safe, to me that is irrelevant because she might be safe but she is not punished. I am no fool and I know that violence breeds violence, but surely there should be some sort of retribution which is just not being met. I am not slagging social workers, that has been done to death and I can't imagine a harder job. But there is definitely something wrong that this woman is free. I am not sure who or what you are defending? I understand that perhaps worse things happen and perhaps you are desensitised because of your job, but that doesn't make this any less horrific. And she does deserve some sort of proper punishment. If she did not have the capacity or skills to say please don't do that to my boy or to seek help or remove him from that situation then she definitely should not be in a position to have more children. I know that loads and loads of unfit parents are able to have more children but it has been well proven that this particular woman is not fit and children are not safe with her. The main problem I see is that there is no retribution. Why is it all about whether or not she is safe - who is that benefitting? Is it her? Is it society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 The difficulty faced is that the court is pre disposed to a 'non intervention' position as family life is deemed holier than holy in law. Meanwhile research shows that the earlier you remove kids from adverse conditions, the better their chances of improved outcomes at school, health wise etc. So a SW goes to court and shows that parents are drinking, often violent, police involved, kids behind at school, medical appts being missed etc, and the court have to give parents chances to change their lifestyles and accept support (if it's available). This can mean a few months more of kids cowering as dangerous adults are around, violence, drugs, squalor and neglect continues. These kids take all this on and they become more and more excluded. They smell so they are picked on at school, they can't settle so are not able to get proper support so that they can read and write properly etc. these kids are then always behind and often develop behavioural problems etc which means less education, more wagging school, drinking and drug taking earlier, problems with police, unemployment. Its a cycle, and the law of the land ties the hands of those it asks to get involved in the most difficult of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Ok, I wrote a big long message but it disappeared. So I'll try and remember what I was saying. For most of us who don't have the benefit of expertise and experience in this area it is appalling that this woman has been released and can walk free. I am fully aware what it is like to be bound by paperwork, criteria and checklists but I am pretty sure that most people don't see that this woman has been punished. Of course I said that I hope she gets beaten, it's because I am rightfully (IMO of course) angry that she has been released. If she is deemed safe, to me that is irrelevant because she might be safe but she is not punished. I am no fool and I know that violence breeds violence, but surely there should be some sort of retribution which is just not being met. I am not slagging social workers, that has been done to death and I can't imagine a harder job. But there is definitely something wrong that this woman is free. I am not sure who or what you are defending? I understand that perhaps worse things happen and perhaps you are desensitised because of your job, but that doesn't make this any less horrific. And she does deserve some sort of proper punishment. If she did not have the capacity or skills to say please don't do that to my boy or to seek help or remove him from that situation then she definitely should not be in a position to have more children. I know that loads and loads of unfit parents are able to have more children but it has been well proven that this particular woman is not fit and children are not safe with her. The main problem I see is that there is no retribution. Why is it all about whether or not she is safe - who is that benefitting? Is it her? Is it society? it benefits both. If she is safe she won't be preyed upon by men like she was previously. That means society is safe from her possibly having more kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxlornaxx Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 perhaps she preyed on the men rather than them on her..i don't believe she was anymore vulnerable than those men were..she should have remained in prison longer however that is not what needs to happen to stop incidents like this happening again.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Ok, I wrote a big long message but it disappeared. So I'll try and remember what I was saying. For most of us who don't have the benefit of expertise and experience in this area it is appalling that this woman has been released and can walk free. I am fully aware what it is like to be bound by paperwork, criteria and checklists but I am pretty sure that most people don't see that this woman has been punished. Of course I said that I hope she gets beaten, it's because I am rightfully (IMO of course) angry that she has been released. If she is deemed safe, to me that is irrelevant because she might be safe but she is not punished. I am no fool and I know that violence breeds violence, but surely there should be some sort of retribution which is just not being met. I am not slagging social workers, that has been done to death and I can't imagine a harder job. But there is definitely something wrong that this woman is free. I am not sure who or what you are defending? I understand that perhaps worse things happen and perhaps you are desensitised because of your job, but that doesn't make this any less horrific. And she does deserve some sort of proper punishment. If she did not have the capacity or skills to say please don't do that to my boy or to seek help or remove him from that situation then she definitely should not be in a position to have more children. I know that loads and loads of unfit parents are able to have more children but it has been well proven that this particular woman is not fit and children are not safe with her. The main problem I see is that there is no retribution. Why is it all about whether or not she is safe - who is that benefitting? Is it her? Is it society? Personally i could not care less if she is safe or not, she is an evil piece of shi7 and i hope the rest of her life is miserable and she wakes up every morning with an image of that poor child printed in her mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 it benefits both. If she is safe she won't be preyed upon by men like she was previously. That means society is safe from her possibly having more kids... sorry my poor wording, i meant safe, as in not a risk to others, why is that more important than her being punished properly for what she has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Personally i could not care less if she is safe or not, she is an evil piece of shi7 and i hope the rest of her life is miserable and she wakes up every morning with an image of that poor child printed in her mind. I don't know if she will though, I don't know if she will feel guilty or not. It's pretty awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichway1 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I saw another awful story too today, not looking, just stumbled on, this man is a complete monster, be careful if you read it it's pretty descriptive http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/19795968/i-tried-to-stop-it-dead-toddlers-mum/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I don't know if she will though, I don't know if she will feel guilty or not. It's pretty awful. She will not feel guilty because anyone capable of letting her own child be tortured is not capable of feeling guilty, she is a monster and should have been locked up for life with no chance of ever seeing the light of day again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxlornaxx Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 oh god that is awful...ive seen women like baby P's mum feel no guilt or remorse as they feel like they too are the victim...or play the victim..which means they may do it again I saw another awful story too today, not looking, just stumbled on, this man is a complete monster, be careful if you read it it's pretty descriptivehttp://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/19795968/i-tried-to-stop-it-dead-toddlers-mum/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.