Be Excellent To Each Other

Fuck me if I'm not sick to death of seeing Baby fucking P on the front page of BBC news and every newspaper I see lately. Don't get me wrong, I'm very sorry Baby P died because of his cuntworthy parents and the useless fucksticks at social services, but if you persist in printing the SAME FUCKING PICTURE EVERY FUCKING DAY FOR TWO WEEKS, I'm going to get very sick of the sight of it.

I agree with Comical. Why, in today's papers there's very little front page headlines of Diana or Maddie. Has the world gone MAD?!

They really need to stop using the same picture over and over. They could at least flip it horizontally or something for a bit of variance. It was like looking at the same fucking gormless picture of maddie over and over for weeks on end, by the end of it you just don't fucking care.

Some weird bloke from the NSPCC was on Breakfast this morning. He looked like a child molester, which amused me. But anyway, he was saying that "the system must be changed SO THAT NO CHILD EVER DIES AGAIN".

Do people have *any* clue at all? Really? No. No they don't.

I'd love to see how these carping twats at the tabloids or the rentamouth commentators would get on working as social workers.

I wish to further remark on human behavior by expressing my dismay and bafflement that the site at which Baby P was buried is now covered with teddy bears and flowers.

Yes, obviously, its a nice gesture by the many random people who didn't know about the case until the newspapers printed about it daily for weeks, but that rather depresses me even more. 'Baby P' (and christ this moniker is getting annoying too) is but one example of a child dead at the hands of cuntworthy parents, with the only unique factor here being that it's been inexplicably over-publicised. Why then favour this one dead child with flowers and teddies? It's like people only care about the highly-publicised tragedies, and sate their conscience at these times with these public expressions of sympathy.

I can't quite articulate why this aggravates me, but it does. No doubt it'll just make me look like an insensitive twat, which is true too.

I didn't fucking care in the first place. Like Diana, like Maddie, "That's a shitty thing to happen" was about the extent of it.



Children are our future. Old people are our past.

Which means the present is mine. So I decree that the fetishisation of childhood should be bloody stopped.

It annoys me too. It's the same as happened with The Sainted Diana and Little Maddie. The "woe is us, a useless sponging inbred toff who can't keep her legs together died in a car accident woe is us WAAAAH" crap started all this.

Feexed for suggestion.

Head of child protection at the NSPCC:


Would you let this man look after your kids?

It does piss me off the way the tabloids run with certain stories like this. There was fuck all coverage of that odious scumbag who justifiably got sent down for 25 life sentences for the habitual rape of his two daughters.

i have no kids, but i wouldn't let that man look after my steak and stilton pasties that I bought for lunch. They are very precious to me

Sorry, shouldn't laugh, but the word "habitual" made me think of him trying to quit his habit by sticking knickers on his arm or something.

This is worth its own thread. *rustle rustle*

Comical - feel free to pick a topic title when I've moved it.

'Baby P' is fine. I'd have probably chosen 'That Cunting fucking Baby P story', which would seem even less sensitive.

AH but you see, no witchhunt was required, cos the system caught him, convicted him and put him away. Who can the wailing masses demand resign?

Can I suggest 'P off, more like', as the subtitle?

Only after he'd raped his daughters for 30 years, though. The problem here was different authorities not sharing information. He'd move every few months, so blip onto Social Services' radar then blip off again to rememerge somewhere else.

One of the girls called Childline (run by our friends the NSPCC), who basically did nothing about it. The girl asked them if they could ensure that she could keep her baby, they said no, and so she didn't pursue anything any further with them. And so stayed with her dad.

The NSPCC said they coudn't have lied to her and said yes, as it is important that children can trust them. Yes, more important than her not spending another 15 years being raped by her dad, you fucking cunts.

Call-centres, you just can't get the staff thesedays.

I agree it's annoying (can we not at least give the poor baby a name?). Having only briefly read about it, the whole thing does seem to paint the social services there as a complete joke. It's all sad and everything, but I guess it's the cause du jour.

genetically speaking, what could happen to a child resulting from a father-daughter rape? Are we talking chromosome damage already or do you need more inter-breeding than that... I'm not researching by the way, just curious.

No, in order to protect his identity.

Obviously a photograph isn't a recognisable identifier for an individual, unlike a name like "Paul" (say), so we can show everyone the photo just fine.

Aside from an increased risk of deformaties or brain damage, I think if they've lucked out and are otherwise normal, they can generally lead normal lives.

Having said that, I also watched that thing about forced marriages in Pakistan, where parents regularly force their daughters to marry their cousins, so I do rather worry about the genetic hell that must be cooking in that kind of culture.

I had thought that wasn't a problem, and that it was where you had generations of inbreeding that you get mutations - I'm sure Gaywood will be along to explain, though. He knows more about this sort of thing.



See also: The British upper classes.

Just a much, much greater chance of genetic defects, by no means a certainty though.

Aren't they dying out? I hope so.

I remember writing about seven years ago about this - in Computing magazine. Basically anything horrible to do with kids is a perfect thing to whip up these campaigns, because there is no way you can morally argue against it. Easy to manufacture outrage and hysteria, no way to damp it down.

I would like to add my whole hearted agreement to this thread.
Is the baby actually called 'P', or is that a police casename or something?
I saw on facebook someone changed their profile picture to one of "baby P" after joining the group, "Catch the scum that did this to the little angel baby P." Or some other such bullshit. Seriously, FTFO.
Yeah, not nice for the baby, yeah parents scum, but come on. I saw someone on TV this morning saying about the fact that someone needs to resign, "there is public outrage here!" He screamed indignantly at me as I slurped my porridge. Err, so what?

Indeed. "Democracy" doesn't mean "do whatever the average ill-educated, reading-age-of-a-12-year-old, witless stupid fucking public have been made to think by that week's Sun".

CRB forms are bad enough, but come next Autumn being in a group without the requiste government approval from the 'Independent Safeguarding Authority' (or being an officer of the group and allowing such people to join) becomes an offence. Hurray for the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act. I'm really scared about the damage it'll do to voluntary organisations.

There was a report on TV (Children in need/the tonight show/some other shit) about a group of doctors who go out to this village in Pakistan and "fix" the people there on there own time/money. Basically, the village is so inbred with forced marriage etc that everyone has significant physical defects and a large amount of mental health issues.
Stop helping them, they want to regress, let them!

Are people really as bothered as the tabloids make out though? I mean is this story really the huge topic of conversation and cause of outrage that the papers and TV would like it to be? Most people seemed to be briefly a bit saddened by it but are the "witless stupid fucking public" who get told exactly what to think by and large every bit as much a figment of people's imagination as the paedophiles in every park?

As for the resignations, at the heart of all this there has actually been a genuine failure here, it is the sort of case that fucking well should see procedures being examined and actions being taken. The bare facts of the case cannot be written of as the sort of thing that is just bound to happen from time to time.

I too am sick of Baby P's stupid ugly gormless drooling face being fucking everywhere. Much like Maddie, there MUST BE better pictures than just that one (which is incredibly unappealing). Yes, it is a tragedy that this unfortunate child died such a horrible, preventable death.

I'm pleased this thread has appeared on the same day when a GIANT version of that picture is smeared across the cover of the Metro (and hence, I see it every few seconds as there's one on the desk next to me and no doubt countless others will be strewn in the steets when I go out to get lunch).

The parents will have one, probably.

Whatever happened to Babies A through O? How can we forget so quickly?

Problem:

People don't want to be social workers as it is a thankless task where you are portrayed as a heartless or incompetent demon.

Lack of social workers employed means case loads are impossible. In attempt to meet targets, terrible mistakes happen. Below-par social workers aren't trained properly or disciplined because of above.

Dismissed social workers or ones taken off for training increase case load massively for others further.

The Sun's Answer:

LOOK AT THESE FECKLESS SCUMMY SOCIAL WORKERS! Getting it wrong again! WHILE LITTLE CHILDREN DIE LIKE THE FACE HERE. KILL THEM! MAKE SURE THEY NEVER WORK AGAIN! NO EXCUSE NO EXCUSE! FIRE THEM ALL!

It's a thankless, difficult task that every bugger seems to think they could do better, but few make the leap into actually trying to do so. See also: being a politician.

Or the Daily Mail:

If you're so POOR and PROLE-LIKE that you need SOCIAL CARE, you are clearly SCUM and shouldn't BE ALIVE AT ALL in the FIRST PLACE. BAN THE WORKING CLASS BEFORE THIS HAPPENS TO YOUR CHILDREN!

One bit of sense that came out of the reporting a couple of weeks back was someone saying that ultimately, if parents are going to kill their child, there's not an awful lot they could do. Still, any excuse to find as many scapegoats as possible to start as many different Facebook groups calling for various witch hunts...

See, if we banned children, this wouldn't happen.

Surely if they're signposting this by beating the hell out of the child and abusing it on a regular basis, they social services can remove baby from parental care, and thusly stop dead baby?

Obviously this relies on a properly funded and working social service, which I understand we don't have, but wasn't the point of Baby P that it was extremely obvious that the baby would either be killed or seriously injured as it was getting constantly battered?

People have probably already said this, but sod it I'll say it again:

Lots of babies die like baby P-but we don't make them front page do we? Why? I couldn't care less about the Diana thing now, I wish people would stop harping on about it as it pisses me off. Also the Maddie case pisses me off, if it was a council estate family no one would give two shits-THAT annoys me.

A week or so in the paper is fine by me, no more those please

I wonder if B3TA will further alter their already grotesque Maddie/Diana hybrid to include Baby P?

No. Everyone did their job perfectly, this sort of thing is inevitable, it's all entirely unreasonable tabloid rage and any action that is being taken is just pandering to thick people.

Including the doctor that failed to spot the kid had a broken back?

Come on - there's been a massive hysteria over this I agree but at the core of it some people *did* fuck up good.

I disagree. If it was a council estate family, the McGanns would have had their other children taken off them by social services for obvious shit parenting.

I know, I was sarcastically paraphrasing this whole thread.

I meant they wouldn't give two shits about making it a worldwide phenomenon would they? They'd just have said, 'ugh-scummy council people can't look after their kids-whats new? Lets ignore the whole thing' but with Maddie it's 'omg they lost their child!' No, no-they didn't lose here, they were careless BIG difference

Well, you did it badly. I don't think there's anyone here that doesn't think that this was a terrible thing to happen; and yes, some people have obviously made mistakes.

The thing is that we always have a media backlash backlash. Too much Diana/Maddie has jaded us, and it's hard to suppress that resentment when the tabloids start it all up again.