As the world celebrates the birth of a baby boy born in abject poverty. There is another infant that I haven’t been able to get out of my head all week.
Baby P looks up at me in the picture everyone has seen and asks questions that no one in polite society seems to want to seriously answer.
It has often been mentioned that there isn’t a resigning culture in Irish politics, that, unlike in the UK, people here cling onto their government positions as if their lives depended on it.
In Britain, on the other hand, a chap falls on his sword, does the honourable thing.
Still the little face looks up at me, at all of us.
The report on the case was swift and, at first glance, comprehensive.
There will be, in the New Year, high-level seminars about improving systems in Child Protection.
I have, since I qualified as a social worker in the UK in 1990, taken part in various re-inventions of essentially the same system.
What is never looked at is who works in the system.
We have, by ideology and happenstance, selected as our front line child protection workers probably the least able people to step into the type of “families” that can turn a child into a corpse.
When I took up my first post as a Social Worker in Glasgow in 1990 I realised that there was, within many of my experienced colleagues, an element of avoidance being practiced.
These nice middle class women just didn’t like being in grubby houses full of drunken violent people. Glasgow does a rather nice line in such abodes.
Moreover although the entire ambience of the professional discourse in social work was one of gender equality, feminist social constructivism, no essential difference between men and women except that men are always bad.
That ideological position was conveniently forgotten when the presence of a young fit man capable of swift violence was required.
I soon found that my female colleagues wanted me to accompany them on “home visits”.
Verbal abuse, threats and, occasionally, violence would be directed at me by some adult during a visit.
One the occasions that a physical response was required after the female colleague got back to the safety of the office a spin would be put on the “critical incident”.
“Couldn’t have I handled the situation differently?”
“Yes I could have let Mr. Smith nail you to the wall as we told him that his kid wasn’t coming out of care!”
Social Workers are lamentably poorly trained for the function they provide. In the absence of any strong evidence based validity for what they do ideology-feminist ideology-fills the vacuum.
They are selected for their social work course on their ability to ideologically conform and parrot a 1970s feminist catechism.
This makes about as much sense as hiring someone to work as a bouncer on the basis that they have an excellent stamp collection.
Baby P died, in part, because the cost of protecting him wasn’t paid by the staff paid to do just that.
One female colleague of mine in Glasgow once on a joint visit was startled when I knocked on a door in a Glasgow tenement. I knocked the door loudly, very loudly. I looked at her and explained, “ it is eleven in the morning, they’ll still be sleeping, they’re drunks.”
This was later dissembled in supervision as “judgmental”.
They were sleeping because they were drunks.
My loud knock on the door got the man of the house stumbling out of his alcoholic stupor.
The lazy chaos of our child protection system is feminism in action.
Feminism in action is feminist inaction when faced with the ideal family unit of feminist ideology-the single mother on welfare.
When I was team leader with Northern Area Health Board in Dublin earlier in this decade I found the identical belief system among a similarly feminised workforce.
Only an Australian social worker seemed to have the muscularity to be an effective child protection worker. That she clearly was dismissive of feminist thought was, in my opinion, no coincidence.
There is nothing especially new in the circumstances that surround the death of this little boy. He joins a list of dead children that were failed by statutory services in these island going back to Maria Caldwell in England in 1973 to, twenty years later, Kelly Fitzgerald in Mayo.
If you think that baby P couldn’t happen here in Ireland then you are also probably confident of the robust health of our banking system.
While we think that nice middle class women gently knocking on grubby doors in Darndale and then skipping away delightedly that there was no answer is a child protection system then an Irish Baby P is only a matter of time.
Dead children are the price we will pay for paying homage to an ideology that those in power seem helpless to challenge.
The next Baby P does not need strangers bearing gifts, but the helpless child will need wise men to barge through the feminist created chaos and say “enough!”
Â
Â
william
Ian,
Your post dumbfounds me, where is it sectarian ? where I have attacked the catholic religion ? Only in a bitter twisted mind ? Phil has also written a lot more articles and barring this one they all follow a particular theme, They attack either Rangers or their fans or anything British / Unionist or protestant, Do you have any idea why ?
January 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Ian
William,
Phil has written an article regarding a terrible situation/event. you have hijacked said article purely in order to fulfill a sectarian agenda. this William ,regardless of what has been said on any other posts by any other poster has no relevance whatsoever to any religion , and for you to use it in such a way as you have is disgraceful, please don’t post any further comments regarding this article which mention religion, please recognise what kind of person this would make you if you continued to do so.Phil has many other posts where you have used many opportunities to air your religious views, please stick to ‘these’ relevant posts ,thank you.
January 28, 2009 at 8:49 am
william
How very noble of you Max, and if you are interested most of the biggest serial killers in History were RC. but I would not even begin to stereotype people, Unlike yourself. The majority population will generally have the most serial killers.
CHILD ABUSE
The difference is, Child abusers are prosected in most cases all over the world, unless they are part of the RC church, where they are protected and moved about the world to continue their sordid acts of depravity, Now that is something that should be written about by a campaigning journalist. He could headline it Protection of the Innocents
January 27, 2009 at 6:52 pm
max
What religion was Fred & rosemary West? I honestly don’t know.
What religion was Peter Sutcliff? I honestly don’t know.
What religion are the parents of baby ‘p’? I honestly don’t know.
What religion was Myra Hindley? I honestly don’t know.
And to all of the above, I DON’T CARE!!
I could talk about child abuse in the Highlands of Scotland, or any number of abuse cases within protestant/presbiterian establishments, but I would be dragging myself down to your gutter level.
You just don’t get it do you william.
You have a heart of slate, full of your own selfimportance, hatred and of course superiority.
I honestly pray for the souls of you and people like you.
But hey! No one likes you, you don’t care! (unless of course someone says it on Coronation street!)
Say a wee prayer william, you’ll feel better, honest.
January 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm
william
Moron ?
being a campaigning journalist and literary dissident ? surely Phillip should concentrate on issues closer to home.
The only religious content in my post is reference to the RC Church and their sustained campaign of Child abuse. If Phil is serious about the issue of child protection then surely this blatant abuse of power has to be addressed, these people should be prosecuted and incarserated instead of being moved to another parish or country. Or do you consider this acceptable, as long as the good name of the church is protected ?
January 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Spuds
William.
Cop on. The article isn’t about the Magdalene Laundries or abuse in the RC Church (just had to bring religion into an article devoid of ANY religious tones – your mask is slipping buddy). It’s about a child dying. Think about that.
But then you’re the kind of chap that uses child abuse for cheap point scoring aren’t you? It’s all a bit of banter though isn’t it?
Moron
January 17, 2009 at 9:58 am
william
Very caring of you Ryan, Phil why not write an article on the Magdelane laundries or other cases of abuse of children in the Republic by the RC Church, I would be interested to read that article.
January 16, 2009 at 6:33 am
Ryan
A spot-on article as usual Phil. Well done.
HAving worked in this field for the best part of 2 years, I can conclusively state that there is certainly a ‘kid’s-glove treatment’ kind of philosophy in the sector that I worked in. The only problem was, it wasn’t the poor kids at risk who were receiving this treatment it was the abusive, substance and alcohol abusing parents!
In a job like this, it is nigh-on impossible NOT to bring personal emotions to the workplace. The trouble was, I and several of my colleagues left this line of work due to extreme disillusionment and feelings of extreme helplessness.
Sure, no-one ever wants to go down the road of Clevelandgate or such like again, but surely guidelines must be put in place to avoid such horrors as Baby P.
I can safely say that there is a proportion of people who enter this line of work for all the wrong reasons-career advancement, job for life, etc. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The ort of people who have not grew up surrounded with harsh realities and a pre-requisite idea of the sort of scummy lowlife that you will be dealing with on a daily basis.
To be honest, there were highly satisfactory aspects of the job but I do not envy anyone who is doing the job for the right reasons and on poor pay.
December 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm