This is currently on the CareSpace 'front page. Link below:

 http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/08/14/109153/agencies-failed-children-of-parents-jailed-for-sexual-abuse.html

 I think that Vicoria Climbie's parents are right to continue to be so frustrated with the Child Protection failures that keep taking place - they don't want to keep hearing the 'mantra' of 'learning lessons' - they want to see positive action with Procedures and safeguards and Professional accountability.

Is that so wrong?

I think that what we need to address is the quality of Supervision and the experience and qualifications of Supervisors. We need to have computerised 'systems' that 'speak' to each other, we need to have multi / inter-disciplinary Teams that work in close proximity to each other, we need to concentrate less on 'Performance Indicators' and more on QUALITY - it is no use ticking the boxes if the quality of Assessments / Analysis / Care Plans is inadequate. It is no use seeking to reduce the numbers of children on Child Protection Registers (subject to a CP Plan) and those who are 'looked after' if we don't have sufficiently robust preventive and supportive services in place. None of this, of course, is 'rocket science' - so what is the problem?

So that's why I keep going on about social workers in schools. It isn't rocket science to know that that's where most kids are and if there are links right from birth or entry to the UK then what's the problem.

Why do we spend so much money on new systems when we could just enhance the ones we already have?

I wonder if this case is also related to a lack of understanding of the potential risk posed by internet based sex offenders?  Certainly there is a growing literature base however there is very little in terms of formal guidance. John Carr, for example, writes of how lack of understanding of internet based offending can place children at risk.  Internet based offending is a rapidly growing problem, yet i have just completed training and this matter was not mentioned once throughout our course, however, being slightly awkward in nature, it was the topic i chose for dissertation.  What became abundantly clear is the level of confusion regarding the risks associated with internet offending.  Many individuals also seem to struggle to get their heads around the technological aspects involved.  I have had a conversation with a manager who could not understand how a 13 year old girl had put photographs of herself online.  I think there is a real need for more training for social workers in this area. 

sidney

I think that both contributors to date are correct but the FACT that parents had previously been known to download a pornogrpahic image of a child means that a child HAD been abused - certainly, there was clear indication of an interest in child pornography. There were also concerns about home conditions.

Northamptonshire County Council's own website makes clear the Procedures that would be followed in circumstances of alleged child abuse so clearly something went terribly wrong.

There are very few schools with social workers working within them - it would be good to have a 'Community Care' feature (if one hasn't already been done) on school-based social work and to hear from such social workers about their work - we would probably learn a great deal.

So - more school-based social work and more work around Child Protection where one or both parents has a learning Difficulty / Disability. My own direct experience has been that whilst most of such parents care deeply about their children there are also potential issues of exploitation by others against them (and it is interesting in this case that the father is not stated to have a Learning Disability / Difficulty).

I am just amazed by Sidney and Rupert's lack of knowledge.  John Carr...is no expert.

 With regard specifically to the Northampton case...dreadful and the worst part (other than the obvious harm to the children)  is the 'lessons will be learned' statement.  How many lessons have to be learned, over how long, for things to change?  I now regard 'lessons will be learned' as a direct slap in the face to every child severely abused or killed.

 On a separate note: Sidney...explain this? quote

 I wonder if this case is also related to a lack of understanding of the potential risk posed by internet based sex offenders? 

There is loads of info around.... it may not fit what you want, but it is there.  Ray Wyre did some good work, LFF does work in this area and Kilby has researched this topic.  I would say, well done to you for choosing the topic for your dissertation, and if you need support or resources just shout.  I would be curious about your sources used to date.  Try to remember that there is a political and financial dimension to the issues of the internet and child protection.

Best of luck!

'millen' - I have not quoted Carr as you allege and neither did what I say about the official response from Northamptonshire contradict your very clear feelings. Please do not male allegations against me that are wholly inaccurate. You have clearly not read my biography otherwise I think that you would want to 'qualify' any allegation against my professional competence.

I didn't say you quoted Carr  that is what the ........ means.

 When I stated 'I am just amazed by Sidney and Rupert's lack of knowledge'  in your case, my reference was to your statement ' to download a pornogrpahic image of a child means that a child HAD been abused - '- In this case, that is clear, but in the vast majority, that is a falicy promoted by politicians and people at the money making end of child protection.  (By way of example, I take it you have written to all the page 3 models from the 1980's to let them know they were abused?  And they could not have consented as they were children- after all those pics are now level 1 on the SAP scale)

 I hope that clarifies.....

I am not sure, that the Northampton minors have been 'abused' (well, not yet). Of course, Rupert (or someone) would have to define 'abuse', before I could comment further.

Yours,

Nigel.

What are you trying to say 'millen' - the laws on Child Abuse have always been quite clearly legally - no newspaper has ever been allowed to publish CHILD pornography.

Then you don't understand what CP is under SOA 2003. CP is now anyone under 18 which could involve  'provocative posing'. (SAP level 1)  Also, don't forget the cover of the Sun regarding betsy schneider... the Sun stated their front page had an image capture of supposed CP- the other was a picture on display in a gallery.  And don't forget the images in the Sunday Times in 2006 that they were fined for - as admitted were images of 14 and 15 year old girls taken during the 1940's and 50's.  Remember that any image of CP is child abuse.  Therefore, I am correct in stating the 'models' in the Sun on page 3 during the 1980's are CP and therefore by default child abuse images.  Also remember that SOA2003 is retrospective....so if images such as the ones I have described are found in a home, then the police will say any children in the home are at risk- which means a child protection investigation.

So the newpapers have been allowed to publish child pornography.

Can you point me to these laws on child abuse? 

In that case 'millen' report The Sun to the police!

Who says I haven't?  I have already stated openly that I have made complaints.  As someone familiar with the workings of Gov't/Courts/LA's you should know this takes time.

 You still haven't answered- where specifically in law are definitions of child abuse written?  I personally have been trying to get the  charged with child neglect and endangerment for months- still working on it. Many may disagree (their option of course) but the bottom line is if serious failures in parenting had not occurred (whatever the outcome) this child would not be in the position-whatever that is- without the parents actions.  They admit it was not a 'one off'.  One of my concerns- amongst many- is these people had/have the power to make referrals. 

To return to the original topic, it would seem to me these people should have been on someone's radar. (But again is that me imposing my model of 'good enough parenting'?)

You seem to assume that we all should know who all these people are - can you provide more details / web links please?

If you are so familiar with matters why are you asking me for details on the law in respect of Child Abuse? If in doubt go and speak with the police. I do not give out legal advice as I am not equipped to do so.

I'm not asking you for legal advice.  If you work in child protection and deal with 'internet' offenders, then you should know all these names.  POCA doesn't actually give specifics about the definitions of 'child abuse'- hence why I thought you might enlighten me.  And the police and CFS don't have the same powers or work to the same guidelines- which again you should know.

 But your posts seem to avoid addressing the points I raise.