Comments on: A Response To Miss Shoesmith On The Baby P Case http://englishopinion.today.com/2009/01/08/a-response-to-miss-shoesmith-on-the-baby-p-case/ Welcome to my crazy world! Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:07:43 +0000 http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1 By: lefemme http://englishopinion.today.com/2009/01/08/a-response-to-miss-shoesmith-on-the-baby-p-case/#comment-89 lefemme Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:26:50 +0000 http://englishopinion.today.com/2009/01/08/a-response-to-miss-shoesmith-on-the-baby-p-case/#comment-89 That's really interesting. I don't really see how anyone can defend someone who failed to do their job, which was protecting children. Whether they were the only one who failed, or not, all should be punished. There seems to be a big problem, just like this in the United States. There are tons of children who are injured and killed every day by obviously neglectful caregivers, yet these health workers and social service workers will give loving parents problems about how they decide to raise their children. I've seen tons of cases where whole communities knew someone was abusing their child and reported it, but professionals never did anything. In the end, the child ended up becoming terribly abused and even killed. I really don't understand how this can happen with the things they do when taking a child to the doctors or anything even, but it does. For example, you must strip children down for check ups here so that health providers can check them out from head to toe. God forbid that they have a birthmark, or they will try to say it's a bruise. You pretty much will have to go get their birth records to show that your child was born with an obvious birthmark! Yet, someone who beats their child can go into the same office as us, and the child can have tons of bruises. Guess what? Nothing is ever said to that person about why their child has bruises. I could tell you tons of things, and that is why the system is flawed. Needless to say, I set anyone straight if they attempt in telling me how to raise our daughter or try to say her birthmark is some type of bruise. I believe that children should be loved and held up high. If the person doesn't want a child or the responsibility, then they should give that child to someone who does. I may not know all of the details of the case, and I do not know any of these people personally. I really believe it's a very sad world indeed when something like this can happen to any child. That’s really interesting. I don’t really see how anyone can defend someone who failed to do their job, which was protecting children. Whether they were the only one who failed, or not, all should be punished. There seems to be a big problem, just like this in the United States. There are tons of children who are injured and killed every day by obviously neglectful caregivers, yet these health workers and social service workers will give loving parents problems about how they decide to raise their children. I’ve seen tons of cases where whole communities knew someone was abusing their child and reported it, but professionals never did anything. In the end, the child ended up becoming terribly abused and even killed. I really don’t understand how this can happen with the things they do when taking a child to the doctors or anything even, but it does. For example, you must strip children down for check ups here so that health providers can check them out from head to toe. God forbid that they have a birthmark, or they will try to say it’s a bruise. You pretty much will have to go get their birth records to show that your child was born with an obvious birthmark! Yet, someone who beats their child can go into the same office as us, and the child can have tons of bruises. Guess what? Nothing is ever said to that person about why their child has bruises. I could tell you tons of things, and that is why the system is flawed. Needless to say, I set anyone straight if they attempt in telling me how to raise our daughter or try to say her birthmark is some type of bruise. I believe that children should be loved and held up high. If the person doesn’t want a child or the responsibility, then they should give that child to someone who does. I may not know all of the details of the case, and I do not know any of these people personally. I really believe it’s a very sad world indeed when something like this can happen to any child.

]]> By: Neil Hartland http://englishopinion.today.com/2009/01/08/a-response-to-miss-shoesmith-on-the-baby-p-case/#comment-88 Neil Hartland Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:54:57 +0000 http://englishopinion.today.com/2009/01/08/a-response-to-miss-shoesmith-on-the-baby-p-case/#comment-88 Having read Miss Shoesmith's comment it occurs to me that the she concentrates her anger based on Sharon Shoesmith's situation rather the most important person at the centre of this whole subject; little Baby P. Can Miss Shoesmith clarify some points then which the media have reported? For example; Did not Social Services have contact with Baby P and his mother over 60 times prior to his death? Did not the police themselves recommend that Baby P should be taken into care? Was Baby P allowed to be returned to his 'mother' after being treated in hospital for non-accidental injuries? If any of the above reports were false then Miss Shoesmith may have an argument. If however they are correct then how can you expect anything else but the agencies responsible to be called negligent? The most important issue above Sharon Shoesmith or anybody else for that matter, is that this child could still be alive today had he had been taken into care. You cant expect the public to beleive that after 60, yes 60 visits, Social Services made a mistake. It was NOT a mistake, it was NEGLIGENCE. This poor child cannot redeem himself so why should the people who FAILD him?? Inless of course you acn proove that the media did get it wrong! Having read Miss Shoesmith’s comment it occurs to me that the she concentrates her anger based on Sharon Shoesmith’s situation rather the most important person at the centre of this whole subject; little Baby P. Can Miss Shoesmith clarify some points then which the media have reported? For example; Did not Social Services have contact with Baby P and his mother over 60 times prior to his death?
Did not the police themselves recommend that Baby P should be taken into care? Was Baby P allowed to be returned to his ‘mother’ after being treated in hospital for non-accidental injuries?

If any of the above reports were false then Miss Shoesmith may have an argument. If however they are correct then how can you expect anything else but the agencies responsible to be called negligent? The most important issue above Sharon Shoesmith or anybody else for that matter, is that this child could still be alive today had he had been taken into care. You cant expect the public to beleive that after 60, yes 60 visits, Social Services made a mistake. It was NOT a mistake, it was NEGLIGENCE. This poor child cannot redeem himself so why should the people who FAILD him?? Inless of course you acn proove that the media did get it wrong!

]]>