Do we really need to see Baby P?

Alpha Mummy contributor Jenny Colgan (pictured right in a stock author shot) writes:

Did we really need the pictures? Did we really need to know precisely how and where the chocolate was smeared over Baby P's face to hide his horrific injuries? Is it going to help us? What's it for? Who is it for? Is it in case we in some way haven't realised that this case is actually quite serious? To give us ideas for fobbing off the social?  Is it, heaven forbid, to sell more papers?

One of my littlies is a blond-haired, blue-eyed sixteen-month-old. But whoever and wherever yours are, you're feeling it. We're all feeling it, okay? So why the horrifically detailed overkill?

Janice Turner wrote an excellent piece in Saturday's paper on the pornography of the reporting. Because it's not like this is a war, where we need to understand what is happening, who is at fault, what the causes are. It's not even a complicated trial, as far as I understand it. It is hopeless, wicked evil that could only be perpetuated by someone who was also trapped in a cycle of hopeless, wicked evil. There are not two sides to this argument; and if Haringey Social Services were unable to learn from the memories, branded in all our heads, of Victoria Climbie in a bath tub, then being drenched in yet more horror is hardly likely to be educational to the rest of us.

There are papers I don't buy because I don't like a big pair of breasts staring up at me over my morning coffee. And there are papers I now can't buy because of the almost salaciously obscene detailing of their content. I always thought that the success of the 'Please Daddy No/Child Called It' genre was because if you were worried about how you were doing as a parent you could always reassure yourself with, 'Well, at least I've not chained them up in the snow in a kennel and made them eat paint, so I can't be that bad'. But now I'm wondering if it might be a little more worrying than that.

Where has this appetite sprung from? And when everyone was so upset about two silly comedians making phone calls, am I the only one upset by the media's handling of this?

Comments

[whimsey]

I see from the news yesterday that taking childfren into care has jumped 36% as social workers now err on the side of caution in the wake of Baby P's death.

How many children in care in the UK were being raised on benefits I wonder? Not all, I'm sure, but I'd go bail it's a hefty portion, and way above an average distribution.

[Whimsey]

Looks like I'm not the only person to suspect the underlying reason that Baby P was not taken into care was to save money...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5201239.ece

Mind you, if councils spent more money on employing more social workers, who were less stressed out and overworked, then that might save lives too.

[Whimsey]

Sho - this isn't really anything to do with poor little Baby P, but your comment raises an interesting point. Pale colouring with blond hair and blue eyes is valued simply because it's rare in the world - it must be a tiny fraction of the world's population that possesses it. Yet, (I assume), red hair is even rarer - yet it's got almost the exact opposite 'value' that fair hair has! Why is one rarity seen as so valuable and enviable, and the other regarded as a misfortune? How are redheads considered in non-European societies, I wonder? We always read in popular fiction that non-Europeans go nuts over nordic blonds, but do they go nuts over redheads too?!

[Sho]

Am I the only one here who is feeling slightly uncomfortable about repeated mentions of the "blue-eyed, blond haired" boy?

What if he'd had hazel eyes and mouse brown hair?

(and I live in a land where they should know better, but even so I've had elderly ladies ask #1 daughter - brown eyes, chestnut hair - if she's jealous of #2 daughter - blonde hair blue eyes)

[Exiled Scot]

It is important for people to see photos of that poor child because it stopped those responsible thinking they could get away with the "Oops, sorry - we won't do it again approach'. We should be horrified, we should be upset, we should be asking why it happned and we should be campaigning for the rights of these children.

[Chegs]

I don't know if it's right or wrong to post those graphics and photos, but this last week I'm not able to look at my two-year-old blond-haired, blue-eyed little son without remembering how much little BabyP must have suffered, getting teary-eyed and giving millions more kisses to him. These images will haunt me for a long-long time and I will be more attentive to spot anything like this in my area. And this is the result of the these details because a similar case happened here in Hungary, although that 3 year-old boy suffered at his father's hands "only" for 3 days before dying, but I don't feel so touched by his tragic fate as it wasn't so widely publicised. So in the end, I think, yes, it is necessary, because if it helps to save even just one child's life then it was worth.

[LM]

I wholeheartedly agree with what SM says, but we also need a sensible culture that doesn't take go on a witchhunt against every adult who is working with children every time a child reports it because sometimes those will be malicious, completely unsubstantiated attacks by children and we cannot allow this. I know this happens; I remember girls at my school doing it about one particular teacher, it was horrible, though at the time I don't think any of us realised how horrible (and the teacher was completely innocent).

(I'm talking about behaviour of slightly older children here - adolescents).

[Whimsey]

I do think it's depressingly true, that it would be a lot cheaper to pay 'undesirables' not to have children, than to have them. Men could be paid to have a vasectomy, and women to have long-term contraceptive jabs. This would, obviously, sort out those adults who only want to have children as a way of milking the state for a free living, and those who actually want children for their own sake, and are prepared to take the financial responsibility for their upbringing.

Does anyone here seriously think that Baby P's mother would have had children had she known she was going to have to fork out for their upbringing herself? Or that the children's father/s would have got her pregnant if they'd thought they have to pay for their upkeep for the next l8 years?

I'm not saying that hideous abuse isn't carried out by adults who do pay for their own children's upkeep, but if we got rid of the parents who breed on benefit, we would at least cut down the number of abuse cases, and, of course, save vast amounts of taxpayers money that could be spent where it is actually deserved, on the ill, the disabled, the elderly, the young, etc etc etc. Oh yes, and on protecting children from abuse.

One thing about this hideous case does puzzle me - why did the mother take the child to the doctor anyway? I don't get it. Or did she not actually want her baby dead, as she'd lose the benefits handouts? It obviously wasn't because she cared tuppance about her child.

[Jane2]

I posted this once already, but it seems to have got lost. I wanted to agree with Whimsey, who has made the same point twice, basically that inadequate people should not be encouraged by the benefit system to have children, as it is the children who suffer.

There is no doubt that the benefit system does encourage serial single motherhood, and that the most feckless, and therefore the most dangerous, find it their best route out of having to get a job: have another baby.

It would be a better use of the state's resources to tie benefit payments into NOT having children. eg you go to the benefits centre once a week, collect a week's supply of DVD's, chocolates, other little luxuries along with your benefit cheque, and in return you submit to a pregnancy test.

The pregnancy test is a necessary antecedent to obtaining certain highly toxic medication (I'm thinking of roaccutane), so it can't be a breach of human rights.

[Whimsey]

"Whimsey's comment about Baby P not being taken into care simply because it costs money is also puzzling; if this was the case there would be no children in care in the UK right now, when in fact there are thousands of children in this situation (I would be interested to know the correct figure?)"

I don't think it's puzzling at all - you've just answered the question anyway. It's BECAUSE there are already so many children in care, that the bill for it is running skyhigh, and child care services are under huge financial pressure NOT to increase the number. Leaving a child with a murderous mother is a lot cheaper. I could be REALLY cynical now and say that Baby P isn't going to cost the taxpayer another penny in child care, is he? Shame we have to fork out hotel-level fees to keep his murderers alive.

As to cost, one of the newspapers has already mentioned that when the question of whether to take him away was mooted by one of the other social workers, it was turned down because the woman who would foster him would cost too much.

Bottom line of child abuse is very simple - we don't as a society spend enough money employing enough social workers (Baby P's social worker was handling l8 cases simultaneously), or enough on foster and care homes. If we spent more money, fewer children would be abused and killed. If we spent enough money, none would be.

It's also, of course, a question of WHERE the money should best be spent. Prevention is better than cure, and prevention at the level of preventing women like Baby P's mother (I use the term biologically only, since no way was she his 'mother' by any common definition of nurturing) having any children in the first place.

[Mike]

Schoolchildren get sex education in schools, they are also shown videos of the effects of drugs and drink driving by seeing hard hitting footage of people being cut out of vehicles following road traffic accidents, shown to them by the police and fire service before they learn to drive. It is called education. School children should be made to watch footage of Baby Peter and Victoria Climbie, and the consequences of such evil behaviour, before they think about having children. Maybe when they first raise their hand to their own child they might be reminded of Victoria and Baby P and ask for help rather than continue on the destructive path towards murder.

Prevention is better than cure.

It is no good for the public to say they don't want to see the suffering of this baby. We should be made to see it and understand the pain and trauma of that baby. If we continue to sweep things like this under the carpet then we cannot be surprised when it keeps happening. I'd actually never heard of Victoria Climbie, or the torture she endured, until Baby P died so that is the point I wish to make.

It is time for people to stand up and be a voice for these children but if you don't know the truth then how can you be a voice for these defenceless human beings?

[Supermother]

Yes, children are more at risk when step parents are around. Children are most at risk at home as well from fathers as well as step fathers. Sometimes it's safer when mothers leave their chidlren's father however.

As for the pictures etc humans are like this. Go back to the newspapers for the 1880s and you'd see the smae sort of thing, penny dreadfuls or something I think those papers were called in those days. The prurient public interest will always be with us.

If it makes people take note and report abuse so much the better. Far too many chidlren are hurt in their own homes by their parents. We need every child given a childline phonenumber (older ones) and a culture where it is never right to use any physica l violence against a child. The only lawful hitting allowed in this country is by parent on child. It's dreadful we still allow it. The law sanctions violence in 2008 and our MPs just decided that was all fine and dandy and they wouldn't change the law.

[Christopher Chantrill]

I don't know whether Alpha Mummies need to see graphic pictures of Baby P. But I do know that Alpha Mummies should feel to the very depths of their beings that the safest place for a child is living with both of his/her married biological parents.

In The Welfare State We're In, James Bartholomew quotes research that says that baby three times more at risk when living with mum married to stepdad and 35 times more at risk when mum is living with boyfriend.

That is something that Alpha Mummies ought to know.

[saul]

we should all be made to look at baby Ps face so we can not hide from the fact that this kind of thing is still going on every day!
why should the killers be protected ???? did they protect him and keep him safe from harm??
i just cant get this out of my mind, and i dont want to untill justice is done for that beautiful child . and as for the lady who wrote this artical , she should be ashamed of herself . go and hide your eyes if you wish to,? in your middle class home

[The very best]

Humans have done awful and inhumane things to eachother since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so. The word Mankind is an oxymoron. Kind; we are not. I don't want to know the gory details of this poor childs demise, it doesn't help at all, but merely 'stains my brain' with images and details that compound my misery.
Fred West, The Moors murders, Jamie Bulger, Victoria Climbie, et all.
We can regurgitate the facts of all these cases, we can try to move on and learn. We can do this without computer graphic depictions of the evil that occured here. Personally I beleive that
'People' are horrible, there will be no change, regardless of who runs the country.

[Lauren]

Susie, surely there is a difference between an "emotional response" and contributing to what amounts to a vicious, ill-thought-out witchhunt?

I feel very emotional about the case but without knowing the full & frank details I don't know at whose door I can lay full blame. Seeing photographs of Baby P will not help me come to a measured, reasoned conclusion as to why he died and whose fault that was. The pictures simply add fuel to the flames of a shrill and shrieking argument which doesn't seem to have an easy answer. That is not to say that there shouldn't be change within the Child Services and Social Care system; this one thing is perfectly obvious.

Anthon Markham's comment makes no sense to me; at no point does Jenny Colgan claim that she does not empathise with Baby P, or cannot see the horribly tragic nature of the situation. Her post shows far more empathy, understanding and compassion than many of its responses.

Whimsey's comment about Baby P not being taken into care simply because it costs money is also puzzling; if this was the case there would be no children in care in the UK right now, when in fact there are thousands of children in this situation (I would be interested to know the correct figure?)

Everybody seem to be going to great lengths to express just how horrified they are about this dreadful crime. In reality, this serves no useful purpose and being more outraged/indignant/disgusted than other people doesn't do much good unless you are actively and regularly taking steps to address and combat root causes (I fully expect to be condemmed for this point of view, of course, and will probably be immediately exposed as cruel/miserable/evil/sick and twisted/utterly dispassionate/Nu Labour, but such is life).

[Ali]

I agree with CAT's post, and find it reassuring to know i'm not the only one who has sobbed daily at the harrowing details of this case. Everytime i close my eyes now, i see Baby P's little face, and cant sleep at night. I really do wish that the papers knew when to turn off the floodgate of information, for the sake of the general public's state of mind.

[Anton Markham]

no wonder the middle classes do not want to see baby p's face staring back at them, adding to their guilt at turning a blind eye to the 'deserving poor' which they would rather step over than be reminded of their bitter existence.
look into his eyes and try to understand his misery so that you may better know the world he comes from, a world away from your own you miserable woman

[Susie]

I wish we could have spared Baby P the horrific details of his appalling abuse as some of us wish to spare ourselves now.

There is a time for an emotional response and if the protracted torture of a baby by those entrusted with his care is not one - well, I fear for our society.

[Whimsey]

I agree with Anthony Price and Ron. Silence only favours the guilty - both the unspeakable mother/men friends, and the almost as unspeakable boss of the child welfare department.

But I bet we know 'why' the child wasn't taken into care. Care costs money. Leaving him with a murderous mother doesn't. End of story.

We also know the 'root cause' of this murder - a woman was financially rewarded for having children, so hey, she had them. One child on benefit, fine - but you don't get the money unless you get the long-term contraception pill. Any subsequent children you don't get benefit from, and the whole lot get taken into care.

Contraception is not rocket science. Even stupid people can do it.

[cat]

I dont want to know the horrific details, I wish I hadnt read the details, I dont want that knowledge in my head, i have cried on and off for several days now, i feel desperate for my own children and want to cuddle them all day long, I am desperately sorry for that poor child but i dont need details of abuse in my head to feel that or to feel that the perpetrators should be HUNG DRAWN AND QUARTERED and I do know what that ent(r)ails

[Cameo]

The media coverage of this case did what it was meant to - it distressed and disgusted me. I did not need to be distressed and disgusted over and over and over again, every time I switched on the TV. I kept thinking the story would be dropped the next day, but still it goes on.
I didn't watch Panorama last night. The trailers for it, and coverage of it on the news (what a cheek) had me rushing for the remote so that I didn't have to see the bloodstained clothes yet again.

This material belongs in a court of law, not on our TV screens. The perpetrators are being dealt with in court, there's an inquiry into what went wrong - we do not need the gory detail.

[Kara]

I purposely avoided all latest articles detailing exactly what was done to the baby. It was enough for me to know that baby was badly abused over a period of time by the people who were supposed to care for him.

I too agree that the enormous appetite of the horrific details is a bit sickening. I'm disturbed that some people would actually need/desire to know how exactly this poor little baby was abused.

[Hol]

If people want to do something helpful for the children- here's a nice one that doesn't take any extra time out of your day. It's nearly the festive season and time to send out the usual avalanche of cards - boxes of charity Christmas cards will be on sale, look out for and buy those which are in support of children's charities. You'd have to buy cards anyway, so it's no extra effort but gives a little something to the kids. If you're still using up the leftovers from last year as my friends and I are... you can reproduce the same effect by donating a certain amount to the NSPCC for every card we send out, whatever we can afford (I'm aiming for £1 a card, finances allowing). One isn't sending out cards at all and is instead donating the cost of buying and sending them to charity. Every penny helps and it's such an easy way to make a usual Christmas chore that you'd be doing anyway benefit the kids. :o)

Still somewhat flabbergasted at the hypocrites who feel it fine to tell Ms Colgan that she should just not read what offends while in the same breath declining to follow their own advice and jumping down her throat... what is it about stories like this that makes otherwise friendly enough blogs get nasty? Is it just that kids are such an emotive subject?

[ron]

The pictures of baby P need to be front and center until it finally sinks into everyone's mind that a small child was tortured to death and no one was willing to help.Do you all understand that there was no way for anyone to save this child?Egos and government departments and rules and heavens knows what else got in the way of saving a child from death.The pictures need to continue until everyone actually ralizes this death was avoidable and we all demand that a sweeping change be made to the system that failed.