They Aren’t Victims. They Are Perpetrators.

Martin Neary on the sad case of Daniel Pelka:

I don’t know Green particularly well but he has always appeared to me to be a conscientious, able and caring man. But, in any case, I’m not sure why, if the director of children’s services needs to resign, why Robinson, the local MP for nearly 40 years should not be considering his own position too. Self evidently, he also failed to prevent Daniel’s murder.

And why should an MP have to resign?

Aren’t we gouged for huge sums of money to support a social services system that time and again fails children for bureaucratic inertia or politically correct paralysis reasons? That’s not why we are gouged for huge sums of money to pay for MPs, is it!?

He does get one thing right, in his typically self-serving rent-seeking article:

…neglectful parents are sometimes seen as victims themselves because of their own poverty and disadvantage.

Indeed so. This must stop.  Time these feral wastes of space felt the same sort of social worker onslaught felt by those other families who challenged authority.

6 comments for “They Aren’t Victims. They Are Perpetrators.

  1. john in cheshire
    August 2, 2013 at 10:56 am

    A few days ago, I watched a short interview with Daniel’s father in Poland. Two things struck me :
    1. When he divorced Daniel’s mother, he was prevented from any contact with his son (is what the father said – translated but I presume accurate). Does that mean the socialist services made that imposition? If so, their culpability in this murder is more than just failing to protect Daniel.
    2. The father asked, if Daniels mother and step-father (though I’m not sure if they are married) hated him so much, why didn’t they send him to live with his father in Poland?
    This is yet another truly awful case and it’s about time, as you suggest, more than just the murderers are punished.

    • August 5, 2013 at 5:49 am

      The grandmother is, as ever, busy putting all the blame on the man. As if her daughter had no free will.

  2. Andrew Duffin
    August 2, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    “he was prevented from any contact with his son”

    Prevented by the mother, is much more likely.

    But of course we don’t actually know.

  3. Able
    August 2, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    “why didn’t they send him to live with his father in Poland?”

    Because then she’d get less drinking money (benefits), probably have to get a job and maybe move out of the free accommodation we’re paying for.

    As to the other question. A mother can be an alcoholic, drug-addict, criminal, psychotic, or all of the above and … ‘she’d still better than any male’ (Social Service Handbook Chptr 1:Verse 1)

    • August 5, 2013 at 5:50 am

      Spot on!

  4. August 3, 2013 at 2:10 am

    Fathers are routinely prevented from seeing their children after divorce or separation. It is rarer than hen’s balls to hear of a mother having to have supervised contact after a divorce. It is even rarer to see a divorce court judge read the easily available statistics that show mothers being the most likely of any identifiable ‘group’ to kill their children, followed by mothers and ‘others’ together, and fathers the least likely.

Comments are closed.