Saturday, 22 November 2008

No what, Sherlock?

The Ranting Penguin has kindly sent me a link to a Facebook page.

I can recommend it for anyone who thinks perhaps that we enraged Daily Mail-reader types are:

A) too harsh on all concerned,
B) members of a tiny minority of professional right-wing whingers.

On it is a link to another Guardian page discussing how its readers failed to notice an insignificant number of tiny and easy-to-misinterpret clues which might, in a parallel universe, have led to a different outcome for Baby P.

The Guardian Key Questions are a priceless treasure trove of the bleeding obvious, and here they are.

Key questions

• Why did all the children's services in Haringey fail to stick to approved procedures for managing child protection cases?

• Why did Shoesmith chair the serious case review into the handling of Baby P, rather than an independent expert?

• Is it a coincidence that a death happened in Haringey again, eight years after the death of Victoria ClimbiĆ©, or is there a specific problem in the north London borough?

• Did police urge social workers not to return Baby P to the family home? If so, why was this ignored?

• Why did Haringey fail to pass on all relevant documents to police and prosecutors until the case reached trial?

• Why did NHS staff fail to follow the correct procedures when there was evidence that Baby P suffered non-accidental injuries?

• Was the management and supervision of staff involved in the case up to scratch?

• Why did the local authority not abide by the fostering regulations when it used family friends as temporary carers for Baby P?

The bodily hygiene behaviour of family Ursidae in sylvan environments springs to mind, and also speculation about how well the Reformation has been received lately in the topmost stratum of the Vatican.


No comments:


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner