I love that the tabloids are obsessed with this dead baby - and are particularly obsessed with giving a platform to the startling number of the dead child's relatives that are now coming forward to declare with righteous outrage how they themselves had “warned” the council and its social workers that the child was in mortal danger.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but: OF COURSE a doctor who failed to identify that anything was wrong with a clearly bruised child with broken fingers, missing fingernails, 8 broken ribs and a broken spine (otherwise known as a ‘paralysed’ child) should be brought to tribunal. Of COURSE a social worker who failed to identify the gravity of the situation with regard a child who had been seen 60 times for over 45 acknowledged injuries should not be allowed to work with children again.
But can you tell me what moral right the grandmother/cousin/neice/absent father of ANY small child has to even the smallest IOTA of outrage if they themselves did not do anything to remove the child from danger? And not just talk about how they “tried” to remove the child but were forced to hand it back. If any child of mine or my family was having its fingertips removed with a Stanley Knife as a piece of home theatre entertainment, there is no social worker, no court, frankly no WEAPON in the land that would persuade me to relinquish that child back into the care of those that had inflicted the harm.
“Oh look, my 18 month old son/grandson/nephew/fill in as appropriate appears to be being beaten senseless on a regular basis by its parents and carers, I simply must take action. I know, I’ll call the council to complain. After all, the welfare of my family is their sole responsibility, isn’t it?”
No, blame culture c**ts of Britain, it really isn’t.
And talking of blame culture, I heard probably THE best example of a person absolving themselves of personal responsibility the other day (and as this one doesn’t involve beaten-to-death children, it’s a lighter note to end on, frankly).
In a piece on the ‘credit crunch’ (it may have been local news – I dunno, maybe I was waiting for Coronation Street) there was a chap being interviewed about his nigh-on insurmountable debts and the “anguish” they had caused him and his wife as they were chased by credit companies. These companies, it transpired, were after him for the return of a grand total of £65,000, which he had spent.
On credit cards.
On cruises, five-star safaris and other “lifestyle luxuries”.
He said, and I quote, “The fact is that I now owe £65,000. And at the end of the day, I’m not completely a victim [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] because it was me that took out the loans and I spent the money, so I know that I am partially responsible. So I’d say that I’m about 70% responsible, but the banks are 30% responsible because they shouldn’t have lent me the money knowing I couldn’t pay it back”.