THE true horror of how Baby P was doomed by one horrifying blunder after another was FINALLY laid bare yesterday - along with a shameful WHITEWASH. Cops, social workers, doctors and lawyers ALL played a part in the defenceless toddler being left with his evil mother and tortured to death. The catastrophic cock-ups by everyone whose job it was to protect the tragic 17-month-old were exposed in a secret report made public yesterday.
Shamed ... sacked Sharon Shoesmith
It was the SECOND Serious Case Review to have been held - and blasts the FIRST as a barely-disguised cover-up by Sharon Shoesmith, the sacked head of children's services at Haringey council in North London.
The new report into the betrayal of angel-faced baby Peter Connelly concludes bluntly: "The horrifying death could and should have been prevented."
It blasts all the agencies involved in his case as being nothing short of INCOMPETENT and INADEQUATE.
Meanwhile Shoesmith's original report - LAUDING "numerous examples of good practice within all agencies" - was condemned.
In it, she even hailed the "clear evidence of appropriate communication between and within agencies".
That was yesterday identified as one of the key FAILURES.
Other stark differences between the two dossiers are spelled out on the right. PM David Cameron, who was briefed on the contents of the new report, yesterday branded it "shocking".
Children's minister Tim Loughton said Shoesmith's version was "complacent" and "insufficient".
Hers claimed none of the agencies had enough information on their own to have acted to "prevent the tragic outcome".
That would have meant Baby Peter being taken into care instead of being left with his monstrous mum Tracey, 29, her brutal lover Steven Barker, 33, and twisted lodger Jason Owen, 37.
The three were caged last year over the agonising death of Peter - who was on an at-risk register.
The second Serious Case Review found that officials intimidated by his mother were too eager to swallow her lies about injuries the toddler kept suffering.
She told her GP Dr Jerome Ikwueke he bruised easily - and that was that, even though a test indicated he was not suffering from any condition that would actually make him susceptible.
The doctor - later suspended by the General Medical Council - never informed the health visitor when the mother claimed Peter had fallen down stairs.
When the youngster had to be taken to hospital for treatment, doctors there were also too gullible. Chillingly, council staff viewed the standard of care Peter received from his mother as "not any different from that of many other families in the borough".
This showed their expectations were "too low", meaning kids there suffered "unacceptable levels of neglect and emotional deprivation".
Peter was regarded by child protection officials as a "routine case" with his injuries occurring "as a matter of course".
Meanwhile cops "did not do their duty" when they shirked responsibility for investigating non-accidental injuries he had suffered.
They left that to a social worker untrained in criminal investigations.
When the wicked mum again took Peter to hospital with new serious injuries, officials should have placed him in temporary foster care.
The report says: "There seems little point in making a child the subject of a child protection plan if the parental care of the child continues unchallenged, and the child continues to be subject to the same harm which precipitated the need for the plan in the first place."
Even when mounting concern for Peter's welfare was at the "highest level" there was still a shocking lack of urgency. A child protection conference was held but no paediatrician or medical team member from the hospital attended.
This "unacceptable" lack of urgency extended to the council's legal team. In July 2007 a summit on care proceedings was held - but a "relatively inexperienced" lawyer was sent to give his views.
The lawyer said - wrongly - that the threshold for Peter being taken away from his mother had not been reached. The report says it clearly had because Peter's injuries were by then "so serious".
Peter's natural father, who cannot be named, told investigators he pleaded with social workers to let him look after the toddler. He said: "I don't believe the interests of the child were heard in this case.
"From day one, social services always took the mother's point of view - so much so I wasn't allowed to take Peter and was never assessed as a viable carer."
He twice told social workers his ex's violent Nazi-loving boyfriend Barker was visiting her home.
The new report was kept under wraps by Labour minister Ed Balls and its release is a hard-fought victory for The Sun.
It concludes: "Peter deserved better from the services which were there to protect him and they in turn deserved better than the ethos which influenced their work at the time."
Report chairman Graham Badman insisted: "There have been significant changes to the way Haringey social services are conducted.
"If Peter Connelly is to have any legacy at all, it is that children are now safer."
A spokesman for the PM said: "It was a Coalition government proposal to publish reports such as these, so a light can be shone on precisely what happened as well as reassuring the public all is being done to prevent it happening again."
Children's minister Mr Loughton said: "Everyone can see and understand the events that led to Peter Connelly's horrific death."
BRUTAL Steven Barker's relationship with Peter's mother was completely ignored by Haringey Social Services - despite overwhelming evidence.
The new report into the betrayal of angel-faced baby Peter Connelly concludes bluntly: "The horrifying death could and should have been prevented."
It blasts all the agencies involved in his case as being nothing short of INCOMPETENT and INADEQUATE.
Meanwhile Shoesmith's original report - LAUDING "numerous examples of good practice within all agencies" - was condemned.
In it, she even hailed the "clear evidence of appropriate communication between and within agencies".
That was yesterday identified as one of the key FAILURES.
Other stark differences between the two dossiers are spelled out on the right. PM David Cameron, who was briefed on the contents of the new report, yesterday branded it "shocking".
Children's minister Tim Loughton said Shoesmith's version was "complacent" and "insufficient".
Hers claimed none of the agencies had enough information on their own to have acted to "prevent the tragic outcome".
That would have meant Baby Peter being taken into care instead of being left with his monstrous mum Tracey, 29, her brutal lover Steven Barker, 33, and twisted lodger Jason Owen, 37.
The three were caged last year over the agonising death of Peter - who was on an at-risk register.
The second Serious Case Review found that officials intimidated by his mother were too eager to swallow her lies about injuries the toddler kept suffering.
She told her GP Dr Jerome Ikwueke he bruised easily - and that was that, even though a test indicated he was not suffering from any condition that would actually make him susceptible.
The doctor - later suspended by the General Medical Council - never informed the health visitor when the mother claimed Peter had fallen down stairs.
When the youngster had to be taken to hospital for treatment, doctors there were also too gullible. Chillingly, council staff viewed the standard of care Peter received from his mother as "not any different from that of many other families in the borough".
This showed their expectations were "too low", meaning kids there suffered "unacceptable levels of neglect and emotional deprivation".
Peter was regarded by child protection officials as a "routine case" with his injuries occurring "as a matter of course".
Meanwhile cops "did not do their duty" when they shirked responsibility for investigating non-accidental injuries he had suffered.
They left that to a social worker untrained in criminal investigations.
When the wicked mum again took Peter to hospital with new serious injuries, officials should have placed him in temporary foster care.
The report says: "There seems little point in making a child the subject of a child protection plan if the parental care of the child continues unchallenged, and the child continues to be subject to the same harm which precipitated the need for the plan in the first place."
Even when mounting concern for Peter's welfare was at the "highest level" there was still a shocking lack of urgency. A child protection conference was held but no paediatrician or medical team member from the hospital attended.
This "unacceptable" lack of urgency extended to the council's legal team. In July 2007 a summit on care proceedings was held - but a "relatively inexperienced" lawyer was sent to give his views.
The lawyer said - wrongly - that the threshold for Peter being taken away from his mother had not been reached. The report says it clearly had because Peter's injuries were by then "so serious".
Peter's natural father, who cannot be named, told investigators he pleaded with social workers to let him look after the toddler. He said: "I don't believe the interests of the child were heard in this case.
"From day one, social services always took the mother's point of view - so much so I wasn't allowed to take Peter and was never assessed as a viable carer."
He twice told social workers his ex's violent Nazi-loving boyfriend Barker was visiting her home.
The new report was kept under wraps by Labour minister Ed Balls and its release is a hard-fought victory for The Sun.
It concludes: "Peter deserved better from the services which were there to protect him and they in turn deserved better than the ethos which influenced their work at the time."
Report chairman Graham Badman insisted: "There have been significant changes to the way Haringey social services are conducted.
"If Peter Connelly is to have any legacy at all, it is that children are now safer."
A spokesman for the PM said: "It was a Coalition government proposal to publish reports such as these, so a light can be shone on precisely what happened as well as reassuring the public all is being done to prevent it happening again."
Children's minister Mr Loughton said: "Everyone can see and understand the events that led to Peter Connelly's horrific death."
BRUTAL Steven Barker's relationship with Peter's mother was completely ignored by Haringey Social Services - despite overwhelming evidence.
A number of agencies knew he was living with Tracey Connelly but their concerns were never properly addressed.
Had it been discovered he was a convicted criminal, Peter would not have been allowed to stay in the house.
A primary care mental health worker, a consultant paediatrician and even the school Peter's siblings went to ALL knew.
Connelly even named Barker as her next of kin on an official form without setting off alarm bells.
Meanwhile, 18st, 6ft 4in hulk Barker, 33, was subjecting defenceless 17-month-old Peter to horrific violence.
Yesterday's report blamed police and social services for not digging deeper into Barker's connection with the family.
Graham Badman, who chaired the review, said: "It's a major issue.
"The insertion of an unidentified man into a vulnerable family may be benign - or it may be dangerous.
"There should have been far greater questioning of the relationship."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3198182/True-horror-of-Baby-Peter-betrayal-laid-bare.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz13flmwwKR
Had it been discovered he was a convicted criminal, Peter would not have been allowed to stay in the house.
A primary care mental health worker, a consultant paediatrician and even the school Peter's siblings went to ALL knew.
Connelly even named Barker as her next of kin on an official form without setting off alarm bells.
Meanwhile, 18st, 6ft 4in hulk Barker, 33, was subjecting defenceless 17-month-old Peter to horrific violence.
Yesterday's report blamed police and social services for not digging deeper into Barker's connection with the family.
Graham Badman, who chaired the review, said: "It's a major issue.
"The insertion of an unidentified man into a vulnerable family may be benign - or it may be dangerous.
"There should have been far greater questioning of the relationship."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3198182/True-horror-of-Baby-Peter-betrayal-laid-bare.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz13flmwwKR
No comments:
Post a Comment