Southall appeal against striking off

Now delayed until 30th March - oooh now why would that be Davey - your legal team struggling given that the transcripts were posted prior to your witnesses giving their testimony? Didn't tailor her evidence at all did she Davey ....... ? Listed for 5 days as well - bringing some "experts" in are you (PACA members by any chance ???????).

Can't wait, because your "experts" did a runner during the hearing didn't they ... why would that be then eh? Couldn't be because they were implicated could it Davey ..... ??

See you in court Dave and all of you who are looking to "save Dave" which is a euphamism for "save ourselves because he's got dirt on us" a word of advice, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas, don't say you weren't warned!

Aunty Penny may have been quiet, that doesn't mean she's redundant!

Back in the land of the living

Well, very hectic Christmas, all my children, grandchildren and their relevant partners descended on the house as usual - just recovering, although I don't think that I will ever recover from our family version of pictionary, which saw me so hysterical that I had to leave the room and go to the ladies. Very very funny and completely off the wall.

Thanks to all who sent cards - my money went elsewhere as you all know!

All of you will know that I have been working with Suzanne and Lee, who came to stop on Monday, we had what can only be described as a very traumatic albeit productive evening, thankfully my girls monopolised Jamie-Lee and took her off to the cinema so she didn't hear or see any of it, I am now on the trail of the real abuser in that case, as can be seen on my shaken baby blog.

Now this is the David Southall blog, so, it would be churlish for me not to mention Dave, so there you are Dave, you have your mention - I am very much looking forward to this year Dave, things are moving along very nicely. OFSTED aren't too impressed with the SC Files you kept, neither is Ed Balls, not to mention a few others - watch this space guys and dolls, more news to come.

Our In House designer promises a New Year Toy in the not too distant future, which will be announced as soon as it has been finished - can't wait!

Must get back onto my FOI's eh!!

Happy New Year - get the Champers ready, I promise you will be opening at some point.

PS Davey, can we have Justine's CVS tape back please, you know you shouldn't have it and it would be so tiresome to have to go to the relevant authorities to get it back!

Will PACA Southall et al stand up for these children???

http://www.libdemvoice.org/justice-minister-david-hanson-agrees-to-use-of-pain-on-children-in-custody-7183.html


Or will it be me, on my own again!


Justice minister agrees to use of pain on children in custody


Written by Helen Duffett on 17th December 2008 – 10:23 am


Justice minister David Hanson has agreed to the continued use of deliberately painful restraint methods in young offenders’ institutions, secure children’s homes and training centres.

Despite the deaths of two teenage boys from restraint-related injuries and a ruling in July by the Court of Appeal that current restraint rules are unlawful, such methods have been approved for use over the next six months.

An independent review was commissioned after the 2007 inquests into the boys’ deaths and was published this week. Adam Rickwood (14) and Gareth Myatt (15) both died in privately-run secure training centres.

The Guardian reports:

Rickwood’s mother, Carol Pounder, whose son died in Hassockfield secure training centre in 2004, said: “I am disgusted that force is still being allowed to be used. At home, parents are not allowed to use any kind of force against their children. Why are children in custody treated differently?”

The court of appeal ruled in July that the existing rules on restraint were unlawful and exposed children to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The review by Andrew Williamson and Peter Smallridge (which went to ministers in June but was only published yesterday), concludes that “a degree of pain compliance may be necessary in exceptional circumstances”.

It advises that a safer system of restraint in child jails needs to be developed and this should be based primarily on holds that avoid pain.

The review adds that the use of “wrist locks”, which do involve deliberately inflicting pain, should continue to be used in exceptional circumstances.

“We understand how irreconcilable the proposal is with the UN convention on the rights of the child and how unpopular it is likely to be with the children’s commissioners, the parliamentary joint committee on human rights and others,” said Willamson and Smallridge [the report's authors].

“Our natural inclination is to support their position on the use of pain. But in this report we bear a significant responsibility to young people and to staff to keep them safe and to protect them from physical harm as much as possible.”

Their report calls for a temporary ban on the use of two particular restraint techniques - one known as the “double basket” hold and another that involves delivering a short, sharp burst of pain to the nose - to be made permanent, and their ban extended to YOIs and local authority secure children’s homes.

The Ministry of Justice said it would allow these techniques to be used for a further six months in young offender institutions while they were replaced with a safer alternative. Hanson added that £4.9m would be spent over the next two years on overhauling the system of restraint used on children held across the public and private sectors.

Official figures released earlier this year show that physical restraint was used 2,729 times on 227 children in the 12 months to June 2008.

One child quoted anonymously in the official review report described being restrained: “You feel funny, dizzy, feel like your arm’s breaking, blood goes to your head, your arm stings for about 10 or 20 minutes afterwards, numb, and you feel sick with the nose one.”

Baby P

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g5JX57cC0vUNzjliKep7vfoVC9WA

So the local council spent £19,000 on a spin doctor to defend Sharon Shoesmith, yet not one penny was spent burying Baby P who had a pauper's burial (cremation) and his ashes scattered.

No lasting memorial for a short and tortured life, they were all "so sorry" that not one person put their hands in thier pockets and bought little Baby P a headstone, something his siblings in future years could visit and talk to.

How fucking wonderful the world of child protection is!

PACA Family W Bristol SCR

Should have written to OFSTED about me really shouldn't you PACA, little did you know that the Safeguarding Children's Board SCRs were going to be scrutinised.

Nevermind Avon and Somerset Police Force Public Protection Unit have been enlightened about the SC File and so have OFSTED, not to mention my MP amongst others.

Funnily enough people thought it highly suspicious that you wrote to the SGCB's at the exact time Family W SCR was about to be published . .. Nice try boys, didn' work did it.

I shall sit back and watch the fallout now, because of course Davey boy and Martin care so much about children they hid a file from agencies that were investigating the family, a file that held information that would have prevented the abuse of further children.

The Baby P effect will eventually bring you all down and expose you for what you are.

Family W Serious Case Review Inadequate

Oh, now I wonder why that would be eh Davey and Martin, wouldn't be because you had all the evidence ref the CVS and smothering hidden away in a God damn secret file marked SC would it?? Go on PACA support the boy, because I am going to blow this thing wide open and lets see how brave you all are then.



Details have emerged of two child abuse cases in which Bristol City Council failed to effectively deal with the fall out.

Ofsted inspectors named the local authority as one of 28 that had carried out inadequate reviews in the aftermath of serious cases of neglect or abuse in the last year, in a highly critical report published this week.

The Bristol Safeguarding Children Board has held four serious case reviews since 2006, with Ofsted branding two of them inadequate.

Serious case reviews are carried out when a child is seriously injured or dies as a result of abuse.

The Ofsted report comes in the wake of the "Baby P" scandal, when a 17-month-old baby in north London died as a result of sustained abuse.

No details of the cases were published by Ofsted but the Post has learned they involved a cases where children died and one where a mentally-ill mother was able to continue abusing three children for years because of failures in the care network.
The story of "Family W" – so called to protect the children's identities – was revealed by the Post in May.

The mother was allowed to look after her three youngest children despite previously trying to smother her eldest child and abducting a baby from a hospital. She suffered from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, which leads to parents to harm their children to attract sympathy for themselves.

A report for the Bristol Safeguarding Children Board found safeguards were not in place that could have prevented the children suffering more harm and made 12 recommendations for agencies to work more closely.

But Ofsted has now said the review was itself inadequate.

The second case involved Rio Ross, who was just 14 months old when he died in July last year of an overdose of crack cocaine, heroin and methadone.

His mother Sabrina Ross, of Wordsworth Road, Horfield, was jailed for five years in June after admitting the manslaughter of her son.

Rio was found dead clutching a cuddly toy by his mother in July last year, the morning after she had been on a crack cocaine and heroin binge.

A report by the board into Rio's death, published in July, concluded his death had been "clearly avoidable" but none of the health or social workers involved could have known he was at risk of methadone ingestion.

This report has also been branded inadequate by Ofsted.

The latest figures show there are 320 children subject to the child protection plan in Bristol, as of this month.

Of these 137 are at risk of emotional harm or abuse; 115 or neglect; 44 of physical harm or abuse and 24 of suspected sexual abuse.

Referring to the Family W case, a Bristol City Council spokesman said: "The safeguarding children board is extremely disappointed that one of its serious case reviews has been assessed as inadequate. The board wholly accepts that assessment and will be applying all the lessons learnt from it.

"However, it is important to stress the finding is a criticism of the time it took to complete the review and the specific nature and content of some of its recommendations – and not of the way partner agencies have acted in managing the care and protection arrangements of the child and other siblings since the case was investigated.

"The children involved are being properly and safely cared for."

Baby P

And the points meant prizes, so they fudged the figures to get what they wanted, 3 stars kudos and more money; it's worse than this actually, the data wasn't hidden, it was destroyed, watch this space, because it's all going to come out. So PACA, now you all know the truth, are you going to call for the people responsible to be prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter/Homicide Act April 2008, or are you going to carry on pointing the finger of blame at "campaigners" - because the big question is this, Haringey came under GOSH and all its expertise in child protection, yet not one designated child protection doctor has spoken out about the fraudulant data, data they would have known was false, because they sit on the very boards that helps compile reports for the audits, their inaction then left many children unprotected, they kept their mouths shut because their jobs were more important than telling the world what was really going on.

So PACA members, which one of you is brave enough to take a stand and stop the abuse?


Times

Baby P council gave false data, Ofsted claims

Laura Dixon

Haringey Council misled Ofsted inspectors and provided inaccurate data on its child protection assessments during the period that Baby P was being abused, according to the organisation’s head.

Christine Gilbert said that officials in Haringey, the London borough whose social services team visited Baby P 60 times before his death, were able to “hide behind” false data that resulted in the agency being rated as good. Inspectors later found that managers had said assessments were completed when they had not been, and that they were often made with the parent or guardian in the room, when they could be the person harming the child.

“I think if the grades that we gave last December gave a false assurance we have to take some responsibility for that,” Ms Gilbert told The Guardian. “That’s one of the reasons that I’m saying we’re looking again at our proposal [to reform inspection]. We need to do all we can from our position so I’m not washing my hands of it.”

She admitted that child protection agencies across the country could be failing children and misleading Ofsted because the assessment methods were open to manipulation. Among proposed reforms are spot checks and rolling reviews

Suzanne Holdsworth

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/12/02/toddler-murder-denied-84229-22384967/



Toddler murder denied


Dec 2 2008 by Gareth Lightfoot, Evening Gazette


A MURDER trial has heard of a mother's shame at leaving her two-year-old son home alone days before he died, allegedly at the hands of his babysitter.

Clare Fisher, 24, gave evidence at Teesside Crown Court as the retrial of an unpaid babysitter accused of murdering toddler Kyle Taylor began yesterday.

Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, 38, denies murdering the tot, also known as Kyle Fisher.

A jury heard how Holdsworth was accused of losing her temper and killing the child by banging his head against banisters in her home.

He was taken ill on July 21, 2004, and died in hospital from brain swelling two days later.

Opening the three-week trial to a jury of eight men and four women, prosecutor Andrew Robertson QC said: “We submit it will become apparent how all the answers point to only one possible conclusion - namely, sadly, that Kyle was killed by this defendant by her forcefully banging his head against the banisters at her own home.

“This was a significant brain injury caused by blunt force.

“This fatal injury must have occurred while he was alone with her.

“We do not suggest that Mrs Holdsworth intended to kill Kyle. The only inference is that she intended to cause him really serious harm.”

The barrister said Kyle was “fine and bubbly” when he was taken to Holdsworth’s then home on Millpool Close, Hartlepool, at about 10.20pm.

At 11.34pm, Holdsworth dialled 999. Paramedics found Kyle dying in the house.

Mr Robertson said Kyle’s unusual bruises to the head matched the banisters at Holdsworth’s home. He said a pathologist suggested Kyle had been gripped and had his head banged several times against the banisters.

He alleged Holdsworth also assaulted Kyle the night before causing less serious bruises.

He told the court Holdsworth put pressure on Miss Fisher, who lived opposite her on Troutpool Close, Hartlepool.

He claimed Holdsworth manipulated Miss Fisher with the prospect of revealing to others that the young mum had left Kyle home alone four days before he was fatally injured.

Jurors heard she left him in his room with a broom wedged under his door handle while she went out to a nightclub.

“I know I shouldn’t have done it. It was the most stupid thing I’ve ever done in my life. That’s the hardest thing I’ve got to live with,” Miss Fisher said.

She denied leaving him alone for long periods at other times, and claimed Holdsworth once suggested leaving him alone.

The Crown say that as they waited at the hospital Holdsworth warned her they would be investigated and constructed a series of lies and persuaded Clare to go along with them.

She said she went along with it because she’d left him alone days earlier and feared he would be taken into care.

Miss Fisher, 19 at the time Kyle died, said it was not easy becoming a single mother at 17.

Under cross-examination by defence barrister Andrew Thomas QC, she admitted being neglectful and living in a “tip”, but insisted: “I would never harm Kyle. I loved Kyle more than anything.”

She said her boy told everyone he loved Holdsworth. She said she was tired and run-down, but not suffering from depression. Her moods were affected by a thyroid operation and she was on medication.

Mr Thomas referred to incidents where Kyle needed medical treatment for injuries. Miss Fisher said he had falls.

A week before Kyle died, a doctor noted he had “a lot of bumps and bruises”. Miss Fisher said nothing was said to her. A pathologist found bruises on Kyle’s head and body, including chest bruises “consistent with rough handling”, said Mr Thomas

.

He said Kyle had older bruises and had “an awful lot of injuries” in the weeks leading up to his death.

She denied failing to attend medical appointments, refusing offers of referrals or not wanting to take Kyle to see doctors.

When interviewed by police Holdsworth, now of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, admitted telling lies - she said to protect Miss Fisher.

Proceeding

PACA David Southall and the letter to Laming

So PACA want to be listened to, they believe what they have to contribute is of significance, this the group that condone Southall and Samuels creating storing and removing files marked SC that weren't available to any other agency in relation to some child protection cases. Fantastic, what stalwarts of child protection they all are. And the OFSTED report proves beyond any doubt that systemic failings that relate soley to points mean prizes (money and kudos) were the single biggest contributing factor in Baby P's death. Not any "campaign". These so called child protectors who pose as PACA are the very reason baby P died, they are the ones that deem that their careers and how they are perceived by the public are more important than the life of a small child. They make me sick, all of them.

Don't take my word for it read it for yourselves it is the likes of the PACA paeds who should never ever work in child protection self interest being their rule of thumb :

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications/haringeyreview/docs/Ofsted%20Joint%20Area%20Review.pdf


Main findings
7.
The main findings of this inspection, described below, point to significant weakness in safeguarding and child protection arrangements in Haringey. They also show that the arrangements for the leadership and management of safeguarding by the local authority and partner agencies in Haringey are inadequate.
��
There is insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight of safeguarding of children and young people from Haringey by elected members, senior officers and others within the strategic partnership.
��
There is a managerial failure to ensure full compliance with some requirements of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, such as the lack of written feedback to those making referrals to social care services.
��
The local safeguarding children board (LSCB) fails to provide sufficient challenge to its member agencies. This is further compounded by the lack of an independent chairperson.
��
Social care, health and police authorities do not communicate and collaborate routinely and consistently to ensure effective assessment, planning and review of cases of vulnerable children and young people.
��
Too often assessments of children and young people, in all agencies, fail to identify those who are at immediate risk of harm and to address their needs.
��
The quality of front line practice across all agencies is inconsistent and not effectively monitored by line managers. 3
4
��
Child protection plans are generally poor.
��
Arrangements for scrutinising performance across the council and the partnership are insufficiently developed and fail to provide systematic support and appropriate challenge to both managers and practitioners.
��
The standard of record keeping on case files across all agencies is inconsistent and often poor.
��
There is too much reliance on quantitative data to measure social care, health, and police performance, without sufficiently robust analysis of the underlying quality of service provision and practice.

Baby P findings and the retention of SC Files

Now did the creating and retention of files marked SC lead to the further abuse of children in the case of Family W? Yes it did and now that all SCR's are being reviewed David and Martin, you had better believe that I have alerted those with that responsibility as to what you did in that case and were found guilty of.

Baby P report: The key findings

Baby P suffered 50 injuries before his death last year

An independent report into the death of Baby P has delivered a damning verdict on the services provided by north London's Haringey Council.

The 17-month-old boy died after months of abuse despite being on the council's child protection register.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls said the shortcomings included:


Failure to identify children at immediate risk of harm and to act on evidence.

This included a failure to talk to children believed to be at risk

Agencies acting in isolation from one another without effective co-ordination

Poor gathering, recording and sharing of information

Insufficient supervision by senior management

Insufficient challenge by the Safeguarding Children Board to council members and frontline staff

Over-dependence on performance data which was not always accurate

Poor child protection plans

Failure to implement the recommendations of the Victoria Climbie inquiry, which heavily criticised it five years ago.

Baby P, PACA and the hangers on

Toilet Blog owner and PACA can stop all their pontificating about how campaigners against false allegations of child abuse have caused baby P to die, because the reality is that Haringey, from the top to the bottom was dysfunctional in its approach to child protection and I want to know why Sukanta Banerjee who sat on the Safeguarding Children Board, whose absolute duty it was to protect Baby P, has not been held accountable yet, still what can you expect from a doctor who seemingly has had no training for the last 4 years?

Haringey PCT and the charges I intend to have bought

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/236/2006236.pdf



Corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide

1 The offence

(1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way
in which its activities are managed or organised—
(a) causes a person’s death, and
(b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the
organisation to the deceased.

(2) The organisations to which this section applies are—
(a) a corporation;
(b) a department or other body listed in Schedule 1;
(c) a police force (as defined in section 12(1)).
In this Act “corporation” does not include a corporation sole but includes any
body corporate wherever incorporated.

(3) An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in
which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a
substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1).

(4) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) “relevant duty of care” has the meaning given by section 2, read with
sections 3 to 7;

Corporate Manslaughter an 2 d Corporate Homicide Bill

(b) a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a “gross” breach if the
conduct alleged to amount to a breach of that duty falls far below what
can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances;

(c) “senior management”, in relation to an organisation, means the persons
who play significant roles in—
(i) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial
part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial
part of those activities.

(5) The offence under this section is called—

(a) corporate manslaughter, in so far as it is an offence under the law of
England and Wales or Northern Ireland;
(b) corporate homicide, in so far as it is an offence under the law of
Scotland.

(6) An organisation that is guilty of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(7) The offence of corporate homicide is indictable only in the High Court of
Justiciary.


Relevant duty of care

2 Meaning of “relevant duty of care”

(1) A “relevant duty of care”, in relation to an organisation, means any of the
following duties owed by it under the law of negligence—
(a) a duty owed to its employees or to other persons working for the
organisation or performing services for it;
(b) a duty owed as occupier of premises;
(c) a duty owed in connection with—
(i) the supply by the organisation of goods or services (whether for
consideration or not),
(ii) the carrying on by the organisation of any construction or
maintenance operations,
(iii) the carrying on by the organisation of any other activity on a
commercial basis, or
(iv) the use or keeping by the organisation of any plant, vehicle or
other thing.

(2) Subsection (1) is subject to sections 3 to 7.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, whether a particular organisation owes a duty of
care to a particular individual is a question of law.

The judge must make any findings of fact necessary to decide that question.

Dr Sukanta Banerjee Baby P and the questions that need asking

Dr Al-Zayyat insisted she was not warned of any child protection
concerns about the toddler before she examined him and said he was bruised and seemed 'miserable'.

Dr Sukanta Banerjee was the designated child protection paediatrician, it was her duty to ensure that all agencies were aware of the child protection concerns. I know that Banerjee had a telephone conversation with Al-Zayyat the day that Baby P was examined by her and that conversation happened post the examination, so, the questions ares these, if Banerjee and Al-Zayyat were in contact and Al-Zayyat had no idea that there were CP concerns, then who phoned who? Why did they have a conversation? What was the content of that conversation and how is it that the designated child protection doctor, who sat on the safeguarding children board, who isn't and hasn't been on the RCPCH A list for her CPD points for the last four years, did not inform all parties involved with Baby P that not only was he on the CP register, but at the time Al-Zayyat conducted an assessment for behavioural problems, was still the subject of a section 47 investigation?