Kevin Harrington appears to have spent most of his working life immersed in alphabet soup. He is the author of Serious Case Reviews ranging from Child ‘A’ in London, through Child ‘C’ in Portsmouth, inexorably onwards via Child ‘K’ in Southampton – I’m sure if Kevin dug deep in his filing cabinet he could have produced a serious case review into a Child ‘Z’ for me.
It is a murky unpalatable soup. Each letter stands as memorial to a child’s life that was carelessly dropped by its parents and subsequently slipped through the fingers of the child protection ‘experts’ supposedly waiting to catch those vulnerable children before they fell to the ground.
No doubt Kevin’s work is pored over the lawyers employed by the various Social Services organisation he has dutifully inspected – ‘Can we be sued?’, ‘Who by?’, ‘How much of a case have they got?’; the media will grab hold of the executive summaries in one hand and the Holy book of Hyperbole in the other and rattle off the 750 words required to fill the space next to double glazing advert; possibly an employee or two flicks through it to see if their name is mentioned – but does anybody else ever read Kevin’s life work?
The latest report to emerge from Kevin’s desk is that of ‘Child K’.
‘K’ had a name once upon a time, back in the euphoric bloom of the maternity ward, it was decided he should be called Blake. Seven years later he is just ‘K’ for short – and supposed anonymity.
When Blake was born, his Mother was living with ‘C’ – ‘C’ innocently thought he was Blake’s father, possibly even arrived at the maternity ward with a dog-eared bunch of filling-station flowers. He wasn’t. That honour fell to ‘A’ who had enjoyed a brief respite in Mother’s bed. ‘X’ thought that he was the Father of ‘Ks’ sibling – but he wasn’t either – that turned out to be ‘C’ who had been told that he was Blake’s father when he wasn’t….look, I can see you are going to get confused here, so here is a chart to help you through it – not that any of it matters one jot, because they were all so busy lying to each other, to say nothing of lying ‘with’ each other than nobody was looking after Blake.
One of them fed him some Vodka to keep him quiet, another ran some porn movies on the TV to keep him amused – and in between Blake managed to ‘walk into’ various objects, including a hot iron, and sustain a catalogue of injuries. Adult bite marks appeared on him as a result of one or more of the adults putting him to bed…as they do, you know how it is when you have children, a friendly nibble gets out of hand….
Somewhere along the line, his penis became bruised. He gathered black eyes and bloodied eyes, as kids do – nothing to alarm Social Services. At one point, Blake hit another child in the face, and when challenged he said ‘that is what Daddy does to me’ – alarm bells rang and it became a ‘child protection issue’. Don’t be daft, not protecting Blake – but the child he had hit.
Eventually, after coming to the attention of various adults who should have been protecting him on 18 occasions without any action, Blake did the only sensible thing left – he died. He died of his injuries whilst in the house with two of the adults supposedly caring for him.
Now Kevin Harrington’s report is exhaustive and details the 18 occasions when someone who is paid to keep an eye out for kids like Blake failed in their duty. Lessons will be learnt, and probably the main one is that they need more funds, for more staff and more training. T’was ever thus.
What I want to know is outside Kevin’s remit. It is this.
How in God’s name could the CPS have decided that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ and it was ‘not in the public interest’ to take any action against the three adults involved in his care? This is what they say:
“The Crown Prosecution Service considered carefully the file of evidence provided by Hampshire Constabulary in relation to the death of Blake Fowler. We were asked to consider if there was sufficient evidence and whether it was in the Public’s Interest to prosecute a range of potential offences including child cruelty through neglect and manslaughter. After careful consideration we were not satisfied there was there sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone with any offence.”
This is the same CPS that will pursue anyone with vague celebrity through Hell and high water for ‘touching the breast of a mature woman’ 30 years ago; the same CPS that will drag defendants back through the courts time and time again, on the basis of one allegation from one individual – but given a host of individuals prepared to state they were witness to this little boy being grievously injured on several occasions, they don’t think there is ‘sufficient evidence’ to at least put all three adults in the dock and let a jury decide which one of them was ultimately responsible for his death?
This is the same CPS that has incurred legal fees running into millions in their pursuit of headlines and celebrity cases. The same CPS headed by a woman who wants to ‘make it easier’ for middle aged matrons to bring cases against the celebrity they threw themselves at years ago. The same CPS forever chasing headlines with their courtroom-steps statements and grandstanding.
People will blame Social Services for Blake’s death; underfunded, demoralised, poorly trained and overworked social workers will take the blame. Kevin Harrington will submit his invoice for detailing the mis-management. Perhaps the neighbours will shout and boo a few times at the adults involved. Maybe a few lessons will be learnt; we live in hope.
Meanwhile, the paedo-hysterics continue over at #CSA central; MPs grandstand, Mark Williams-Thomas builds his career on Paedotainment. Try shouting Blake Fowler at them next time they pipe up – see if there’s even a flicker of recognition at his name…maybe if we can turn little Blake into a celebrity they might be interested in mounting a prosecution?
Meanwhile, if you want to know what child abuse is really like in the real world – try reading this.