The combined forces of Doncaster Social Services and Ed Balls are conspiring to keep the truth from us, but for once the BBC has acted as whistleblower. You didn’t notice? Ah! It was buried deep in their web site, but Ms Raccoon has ferreted out the information.

The first hint that the BBC knew more than the judge in the case came on Friday night, when Gavin Esler, the Newsnight presenter, read out some of the findings of the version which was leaked to the BBC, and contrasted them with those of the summary. Even he was reticent about the full details.

Some of the details have been quoted and re-quoted, the ‘toxic’ home life – take note of that term, its relevance will become clearer later – the exposure to pornography; well even our famed ex-Home Secretary’s home life apparently includes an exposure to pornography, at tax payers expense no less, and so far as I know, her children have not taken to lassoing other children across a river to engage in ‘sex games’, so that cannot be the whole reason these children were so damaged.

This ‘toxic’ home life also included an exposure to ‘drinking’, as does the home life of every child in France, and probably most of Britain too, and whilst drinking is the new target of the Puritans, it does seem unfair to imply that exposure to it should result in children turning into psychopaths.

But what is this buried at the end of the BBC report? A tiny and not insignificant detail omitted from every other newspaper article that I have managed to find, which could only have come from the report that the BBC has in its possession…….or could it be that someone, deep in the bowels of the BBC took the opportunity to ‘sex up’ this report and insert their own personal obsession?

The judge was told about years of domestic violence and how one of the boys was exposed to horror videos, pornography, drinking, drugs and cigarettes.

Yes, one of the boys was exposed to cigarettes! What were Doncaster Social Services thinking of? Did none of the council bin inspectors ever report that there were discarded Golden Virginia wrappers in the bins? Did CCTV never reveal that one of the parents was seen to stub out a cigarette on the back doorstep? A ‘toxic’ home life indeed, the victims of passive smoking, that child may even have tasted a cigarette themselves, no wonder they dare not reveal the full report. Cigarettes, the new cause of psychopathic tendencies in the feral underclass.

So the spotlight is turned away from the perpetrators of this hideous affair, to the parents. Mum was quick to absolve herself – ‘it’s nothing to do with me’, she said.

And why should she not think so? Nine agencies over 14 years had poked their nose into that foetid home, and found no reason to intervene. The state had made it quite plain to these parents that the parents were not responsible for their children, and that the state was quite content with the way in which the parents were bringing them up on the state’s behalf.

Little wonder that the state was so ineffective. The Times managed to track down the CV of one Mark Hodson who was in charge of running the children’s services at Doncaster. It seems his main area of expertise was in ensuring the efficient running of a production line of sausages and meat pies before being handed the task of safeguarding these vulnerable children – you couldn’t make it up! The names of the people who sat on a panel and decided that extruding minced pork into plastic casings was the ideal background for making sensitive decisions on diverse family backgrounds – and worth £103,000 a year – should be paraded before us for all to see. How much do they earn? How can they possibly justify such an obtuse decision?

Yet now that it has all gone horribly wrong, and there is a danger of the state’s inertia when faced with two children on the child protection register and who had both been expelled from school, being found lacking, we are told that the report must be kept confidential – and that the parents may face prosecution!

The Independent consulted Graham Wood QC on the subject of prosecution of the parents.

“I haven’t come across a prosecution of parents for cruelty which is the result of child offences. It would be breaking new ground legally. It would be a very difficult prosecution to bring. The only real offence which they could be charged with is cruelty under the Children and Young Person’s Act. In this context, they would have to prove some sort of mental instability had been caused by it. If the kids were exposed to violence or pornography, there could be a tenuous link.”

Doncaster Council is reported to have spent £30,000 in an attempt to get an injunction that would stop the publication of the report. Action for Children, which provided “parental support” to the family for six months following a referral from social services, and which is named in the report, is also against its publication. Elsewhere we are told that it will cost the tax payer £5 million in round-the-clock care to rehabilitate these children.

Because the state assumed responsibility for those children, a responsibility it failed to discharge, and now it wishes to remain anonymous and prosecute the parents? The state would like us to believe that evil parents create evil children. Then should we not be prosecuting the parents of the parents, or the grandparents, where do you stop apportioning blame? The state would like us to believe that only the state can do a good job of protecting children from evil adults.

In which case we should be prosecuting the state for landing us with a massive bill to rehabilitate two feral individuals that they had assumed responsibility for – and let the parents remain anonymous, they were obviously damaged as children themselves…..

Unless of course, the state would care to back out of its current obsession with social engineering, and let us go back to the old ways of a clip round the ear from the local policeman as a way of reminding young people that whatever they encounter at home, they are responsible for their own behaviour out in the adult world.

Ed Balls-up can’t have it both ways. The horrors inflicted in Edlington don’t stand testament to a ‘broken Britain’, they stand testament to a government that seeks to take control of our children, and is now seeking to hide the report which shows what a lousy job they make of it.

1
Cato January 24, 2010 at 16:36

There are plenty of people in Edlington who know the identities of these monsters. Why do none of them pass it on to a blogger? Think back to Baby P…his identity was all over the blogsphere.

2
Anna Raccoon January 24, 2010 at 17:08

Perry’s Vauxhall Garage in Wheatley is displaying pictures of all six brothers if anyone is close enough to nip and get me a copy…….

3
Alan January 24, 2010 at 17:09

Is some of this down to so many ‘agencies’ and ’services’ being involved that responsibility for those children becomes so diffused that no one is responsible? The decision making process would be labyrinthian but to be expected if social services, Police, etc, etc all *have* (Or choose? Is unilateral decision making still possible?) to liase with each other before anything of substance could be promised let alone done.

Two heads are not always better than one and if the State is to rubber stamp home life in this way it *has* to do a proper job.

Everywhere you look the Government has muddled it’s priorities to face inwards upon themselves rather than outwards to the people they are meant to serve. More meetings, more committees, more money. These are the things they measure and can achieve therefore that is what they do. Gold stars all round!

4
Vimes January 24, 2010 at 17:20

Sometimes, we just have to accept that there are some evil wee bastards out there and all the social workers in the world won’t change that. Perhaps we should start paying the underclass not to breed, rather than shelling out child benefit for every sprog they drop?

5
Anna Raccoon January 24, 2010 at 17:20

Alan, there have alwasy been kids like these two around.

The difference now is that the state maintains it is the only person who can bring sanctions…..not parents, not teachers, not police. All those agencies have so many hoops to jump through to cover their backsides, so many forms, so many risk assessments, that it becomes so much easier to think of reasons to do nothing, to tick the box marked ‘all OK’.

The state is supposed to be there to defend us from mortal harm, not mold us into its current idea of the perfect citizen.

6
Anna Raccoon January 24, 2010 at 17:22

Vimes,
I don’t think the state has any business paying anyone to breed, its none of their business..

7
JuliaM January 24, 2010 at 17:24

“It seems his main area of expertise was in ensuring the efficient running of a production line of sausages and meat pies before being handed the task of safeguarding these vulnerable children – you couldn’t make it up!”

This sounds like something the ‘Daily Mash’ would reject at their editorial meeting as ‘too unfunny’. And it really happened…

“There are plenty of people in Edlington who know the identities of these monsters. Why do none of them pass it on to a blogger?”

What good would it do? Like the Bulger killers, they’ll be given expensive new identities.

8
JohnRS January 24, 2010 at 17:51

@Vimes “Perhaps we should start paying the underclass not to breed, rather than shelling out child benefit for every sprog they drop?”

No, No , No we shouldnt be paying them at all, for any children, or not having children, or because its raining or any other bloody stupid excuse the SS come up with. This is the cause of the problem in the first place. The SS is now a feather bed rather than the safety net is was intended to be. It was never supposed to be an affordable lifestyle choice.

If they’re out of work they get a basic job seekers allowance, that’s it. Enough to keep body and soul together and that’s all. No extra benefits for this and that, no extra money when they pop out another mouth to feed, nothing.

Pass the resulting cut in government “investment” back to business in the form of reduced corporation tax and VAT to generate more economic growth and hence jobs. Then these two slimeball parents can get off their backsides and work for a living if they want more cash instead of stealing it from me and my family. Might even be a good role model for their evil children as well.

9
The Slogger January 24, 2010 at 18:07

Anna
As you know it is my sad fate to have A** at A-level in this subject. Your rant is a bit tabloid in places…but no less accurate for all that. The points which mirror my experience entirely are:
1. Conspiratorial attempt by judges and SS to pervert the course of justice
2. Utter abrogation of responsibility by senior management and ministers, thus leaving lower ranks to take the crap. See http://www.notbornyesterday.org/harmballs.htm
3. Assumption by the State that they know best. My view these days is to keep the State out of any and all families, however decadent they may be.
4. Complete failure of politicos to realise that their own daft ideas caused much of this in the first place.
5. Abolish the Secret Family Courts and Judicial gagging orders: why does it need a media ban on ALL Court proceedings to protect a child’s name?
6. The ordinary social worker (while sadly misguided) is being asked by incompetent social engineers to clear up the cowshit after forty years of laissez-faire society. They are overwhelmed by this Tsunami of dysfunction.

I read today that Ed Balls has a stammer. What a shame it isn’t more pronounced.
xx

10
The Slogger January 24, 2010 at 18:11

annanuvvafing.

seefingizlike….them cigarettes an shit, they is like well dangerous innit? They is like whoooaaa bad fer you. You should move to summink more yerknow safe an that wiv a better buzz. Like that fertliza they sell on the intnet. Respeck ma bitch.
xx

11
Arphamoe January 24, 2010 at 18:38

When, over 40 years ago as a police officer, I encountered this sort of family problem, I used the ‘Care and Protection’ protocols to take the little darlings away from the derelict family situation and they then had to prove their ability to care properly for the child before they got them back. Since then, years of social engineering have destroyed all the common sense protections and left us to take on the cost and anguish of trying to get the kids into a decent future. Dont expect any change soon!!!

12
James Wellbottom January 24, 2010 at 18:50

Name them and show us their photo’s now. This is a village of 8000 people, everyone in that village will know who these monsters are. Name them.

WRT the Government and Social Services, we all know that whichever party is in, there will be no change – read 1984 for heck’s sake. They’re not in it for us. They are in it for big business and their future vested interests that will be served by big business when they leave politics (see John Major, Tony B.Liar, etc.).

Show them [and big business] in the only way that hurts them – take away the vested interests, do not vote for a party, vote for the independent.

Name and show us the photo’s of these evil boys.

I will give GBP5000 to the person who sends these pictures in.

13
Anna Raccoon January 24, 2010 at 19:00

James,
I shall happily publish them!

14
googlecat January 24, 2010 at 20:15

And this is the state that wants us to believe that Contact Point and Vetting & Barring Scheme will work as intended. The former is simply a one stop database of children available for people of evil minds to target, the latter a pathway to a licence for people of evil minds to have unfettered access to these children.

The abysmal state record on leaky databases will quite likely ensure the former is made available on p2p and torrents within a year. The latter will give unconvicted paedophiles easy access to children (“oh they’re vetted, they must be ok”), subjugating the natural instincts/suspicions of parents & carers to the unreliable state.

What a complete recipe for disaster. Truly the pinnacle of database nation euphoria. I hope all systems irreversibly crash within minutes of going online.

15
marie19 January 24, 2010 at 23:24

Anna, off topic but why do you think the post mortem and details of Dr. Kelly’s death is being kept secret for 70 years? As to the above, when will any Government learn not to subsidize what they don’t want more of, paying feckless people to breed on the state then utterly neglect their unfortunate offspring.

16
Rog January 25, 2010 at 06:49

Its high time those evil buggers (the smokers) were put on a National database which could then be left on the 1610 from Waterloo so the local thicko’s can waddle in protest at their dirty doings.

17
Clarinda January 25, 2010 at 12:23

Working in an A/E over 30 years ago in a large city, many children were removed to foster or care homes from desperately “toxic” homes by the police and specialist child care agencies. The police then seemed to be very familiar with these family circumstances and their word , often backed by concerned neighbours, was enough with the medical report to take these children away immediately without the morass of today’s paperwork, committees and general faffing about. Those police were nearly always mature, local Bobbies who knew their patch and who had the interests of these tiny children at heart. They told us that if these little ones were not removed before the age of four years it was unlikely that any form of rehabilitation would be beneficial as they had learned in their long experience.

There was a saying then – “Those who use birth control probably shouldn’t, but for those that don’t use birth control they definitely should”?

18
Sabot January 25, 2010 at 18:25

This massive degeneration all started with The Pill. Okay, all laugh, but think about.

Sex for All became available, and everybody wanted some of it. Sex became common place among the unmarried, and everyone was talking about it. Becoming pregnant was no big deal anymore, and shame vanished.

What we have now was inevitable.