British Justice; partly right, and partly blind!

The old saying goes as well today as when it was first created:- Life is short, and then we die.

Toddler Peter Connelly had a short life, shorter by a great deal than most, and it was a  life filled with pain, agony and the receipt of a battering which is incomprehensible to any who have been acclimatised even to a veneer of civilisation.

His listed injuries included

Eight broken ribs

Snapped spine

Missing fingertips

Missing fingernails and toenails

Bite marks

Ulcerated infected wounds to his scalp (probably from infected bites)

Bruises all over his body

Injuries to the inside of his mouth

His left earlobe had been torn.

But they were only the physical symptoms. Can one even imagine the mental torment he suffered when this tiny child was ferociously assaulted by a paedophile and his perverted brother?

But I write today of one woman who was imprisoned, and one who got clean away. The mother, drink and drug-raddled, stood by and let this terrible thing happen, and today we learn that she has been denied parole, after being recalled to prison for other offences. The other specimen, who should not be even counted as a member of the human race, walked away with £680,000.00 for unfair dismissal!

 

5 comments for “British Justice; partly right, and partly blind!

  1. John in cheshire
    November 28, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Mrs Shoesmith should also have been imprisoned for a very long time for her failings. Instead she’s been rewarded for being a bad person.

  2. Custard Cream
    November 28, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    Shoesmith got away because of the incompetence of Ed Ballsup; this is one time when due process should have been followed.

    Where is she now? Slithered into another tax-funded sinecure?

    • Errol
      November 28, 2017 at 7:46 pm

      Danger is that if she had been allowed to continue chances are they’d have found she did nothing wrong. After all, ‘doing’ in the state is just following process. It doesn’t matter the consequences or outcome. The process is the key. That is what you’re assessed on, not the actual outcome.

      ‘Baby Peter’ is, to people like Shoesmith, just a statistic, a case file. A number that one of her staff is monitoring. She is likely more interested and motivated to get a parking space in the morning than that poor, abused child. She does not care.

      Heck, she didn’t retire into ignominy, accepting her guilt. She fought, ardent in her belief she had done no wrong because she does not hold herself responsible – because, to the state, she isn’t. That’s the problem. In business if you screw up, you get the sack. In the state, you don’t have any one actually responsible. You just keep claiming your salary and say ‘I followed all the processes’.

      No guilt, no dignity, no culpability. Just absolute and complete box ticking.

  3. Errol
    November 28, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    As head of children’s services, it was her responsibility to protect the children under her watch. That is why she receives the offensive salary she does. She did not do this. She failed to do her job. Of course, in the new Left wing state, doing her job just involved box ticking and checking. She wasn’t actually interested in helping the children at all. Just following process and having a few meetings.

    She is the epitome of failure. She did her job, but she also didn’t, because that would have meant *doing* her job. Frankly, she should be sacked and forbidden from working in the public sector ever again. Alongside her, Ed Balls, who should foot the bill. He sacked her without following process.

    • November 29, 2017 at 1:35 am

      “”….it was her responsibility to protect the children under her watch.””

      Herein lies the problem. There is no way, short of the State ‘owning’ all children and directly supervising their housing, feeding, clothing etc etc that any ‘Department’ can protect before an event. They are like the police. A crime needs to be committed to be investigated (some time after they police have bothered to show up) and the victims are a secondary consideration.

      Do we want to go down the wee scottish crankie lady’s path and appoint some stranger into the family as overseer? Perhaps a live-in, State Nanny?

Comments are closed.