Baby P - consequences, responsibility

I’ve not commented on Baby P too much – other than to berate the way our leaders responded to this horrific killing. One of the reasons for this is because the case stirs up strong emotions in just about everyone who hears about it. And I wanted to think before I recorded my thoughts – which is something or a rarity on this blog.

Let’s make something very clear. The people directly responsible for the death of Baby P are those who tortured him, and those who stood by in the same property whilst that toddler was slowly killed in an agonising way. Those who kill, maim, hurt, torture etc are those who are responsible for their crimes. As my good friend the Moai put it this morning, up to a point, you cannot stop evil people killing children with all the resources on the world.

That said, there were a lot of resources who became involved in this case. One hell of a lot of resources. According to the BBC, Baby P had over 60 contacts with social workers, the police etc over his short life of misery. What staggers me is how so much contact with presumed professionals failed to save this child from the nightmare waiting for him back at his home. Perhaps the most staggering example of this is the doctor who managed to miss the baby’s broken back. Apparently the baby was “miserable and cranky.” I can imagine, having endured a life of sadness, fear and pain, compounded with a broken fucking back, that he probably was quite miserable and cranky.

In this case, the repeated intervention of the state did not work. The council, the police, the doctors did not kill Baby P – but despite all being involved in the case, they failed to stop this dreadful case as it edged towards its ghastly denouement. They did not killthis baby, they did not prevent the death either. And those who failed to prevent the death should be held responsible for their failings, just as those who killed the poor boy should be held responsible for their crimes.
Some will argue that the doctors, social workers etc were just doing their jobs – and they were trying to do so under incredibly difficult circumstances and in a world mired by bureaucracy, assumptions and presumptions. That may be the case, but it does not stop them from being responsible for their actions.

Or, to be more precise, from the consequences of those actions.

On some levels, calling for those involved in this case to resign seems unfair. After all, people make mistakes all the time, and social workers have missed abuse before, but not had to resign over their mistakes. Which is why it is so crucial to understand that these mistakes do have consequences. Sometimes those consequences will be very little. Other times, they will be horrific and should, without a shadow of a doubt, be resigning issues (at the very least).

Take these two scenarios. In the first one, a baby is admitted to hospital with a bruise to the head. A doctor thinks the child was abused. A social worker investigates, and concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to put the child into care. What the social worker does not know is that the father hit the baby. However, the father is so chastened, scared and ashamed of his actions that he never touches the child again, and the baby grows up to lead a happy life. The social worker makes a mistake, and does not get punished for that error.

In the second one, a baby is admitted to hospital with a bruise to the head. A doctor thinks the child was abused. A social worker investigates, and concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to put the child into care. What the social worker does not know is that the father hit the baby. The father is a brutal sadist, who hit the baby for fun. The father goes on physically abusing the baby until the baby dies. There is national outcry, the social worker is fired from their job and is wide open to civil action owing to their mistake.

In both scenarios the social worker makes the same mistake. In the latter scenario, the social worker is punished badly for their mistake, whilst in the former, nothing happens. It may seem unfair to some, but ultimately the consequences in scenario two are far worse and more extreme than scenario one. Actions have consequences, and you are responsible for the consequences of those actions.

You can apply this logic to the polar opposite – where an over zealous social worker sees abuse where there is no abuse, and as a result an innocent family lose their child (even if it is only for a while). Should that social worker be punished? ‘Course they should, because the consequences of these actions are hurting others.

This case reeks of the lack of responsibility endemic within the public sector. The council etc can argue that they checked the right boxes, or that their employees are only human and therefore will make this sort of error. Small comfort for the dead toddler. And there will be those who argue that sacking social workers when they make mistakes will make their jobs more difficult and more stressful. Well, good. They are public servants, paid out of the public purse. The sooner they realise they can and will be held responsible for what they do, the better. It may make them more careful in the decisions they make, and less likely to make this sort of terrible error.

And if people have to lose their jobs to make this happen, then so be it.