Choose a discussion

Horror Child Abuse Story

2

horrific story of neglect of a child, its really long but its gets better as it goes on

www.tampabay.com/featu...

0 |
2

Move on mate

Or send you're brilliant solution into child services lol

1 |

Why do you keep trying to make out the costs would be high, Muzka? CCTV solutions are cheap as fuck these days. Once the legal/legislative/regulations were sorted, the equipment costs and running would be a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of legal/staff etc.

0 |

Wow. Not like you to act like the final word on something Muzka lol

0 |

Monitoring and reviewing then legislation and regulations around privacy and dealing with agreements etc.

I don't think you're listening though, adoption isn't the problem

1 |

:)

0 |

lol Muzka acting like he's the know-all of the century, yet again. What's wrong with just having a discussion about something without you having to get on like a root and start slabbering?

The funny thing is, I said to Barry about an hour ago that you'd get on like this, and here we are lol. So predictable.

0 |

We were having one and I explained using facts why it wouldn't work and you just stubbornly refused to accept them as usual. It's painful mate and why I usually avoid your arguments on here

Ok then amazing idea, stick cameras in people's homes and that will stop infant deaths. Cheap as chips to, sure it's only a web cam and if they've nothing to hide what's the problem.

Children, you can sleep safe tonight

Better? :)

1 |

lol at I even said to Barry

2 |

Muzka's estrogen levels go through the roof when pluralising these gender studies/sociology textbooks. Must be near hitting TJ's basic everyday level.
Are you developing mammary glands this afternoon, Muzka?
Maybe you'll be able to adopt a kid. I'm sure Welsh social services would be eager to have a whiteboy, hip hop playing, lactating DJ with balls as a mother/father. That would be a fantastic experiment in their diversity adoption programme, o isn't that fantastic! Never mind about he kid. Diversify, motherfucker.

0 |

I understand that you wish to try and portray some sort of superiority on this subject, saying you're studying it at college, but I still provided more to back up my inexpert views than you did to back up your inexpert views tbf lol

Calm your jets horse.

0 |

It's just something I'm interested in and fancied talking about, sadly it was with the wrong person

lol at james

1 |

Ok takki, well if I need advice on selling wheelchairs to spastics I'll come ask you

;)

Don't crack, wee jokes

0 |

Yeah, the wrong person is right lad. Sadly it was someone who at least backs up their argument with context/sources/evidence, as opposed to someone who just nods and agrees with you lol

Just wondering if you think the families and vulnerable elderly people who have been saved from abuse due to CCTV would agree that they're a 'shite idea'?

0 |

Spastics? Right.

0 |

what are two wimmen like

0 |

I know RJ, it's embarrassing

1 |

Extremely embarrassing. Someone who is apparently studying this cant even wrap their head around the fact that there could clearly be benefits to CCTV in certain adoption situations.. just as there is proven benefits and evidence in other care situations (e.g. care of the elderly, childcare, nurseries etc), as long as the correct management and ethical guidelines are in place, as highlighter in this link from earlier - www.themdu.com/guidanc...

0 |

That's in places of care that are businesses, different laws and regulations about government bodies watching private households.

Besides, my point I kept making is the issue is prevention rather than having evidence to prosecute.

My next point was adoption settings aren't the common place of incidents, that's in their birth families.

Lastly are these monitored 24/7? For how long? You don't think there is still potential of abuse after the trial period?

1 |

r.e. the CCTV, the abuse would simply move to areas not covered with the cameras not to mention the whole rigmarole of friends and family calling round to the house with their kids and the privacy concerns there..

1 |

in fairness, takki said that the footage would be stored locally and not touched unless there was suspicions of abuse.

0 |

Exactly, easy to avoid cameras.

Different in care homes or nurseries as the cameras are in designated areas that the residents or children stay in.

CCTV in those settings I fully agree work

1 |

If it's only stored it won't do much use unless something happens which is too late

I know he said it could be looked at if bruising raises suspicion but in the time that takes a child could be dead. More direct action is needed to reduce volatile people having access to children from the start. Not give them a child and watch in case something happens

IMO of course

1 |

I never said or tried to say it would put a complete or permanent stop to it. That is obviously impossible. I'm just suggesting that it could act as a deterrent or at least be useful in cases where children have had injuries that look suspicious.

Yes, the people could just abuse the kids in a different room, or out in the back garden, or out at the shops... of course these things *could* all happen, but what I'm saying is that it may be a viable method of deterring potential headers or be an extra method of vetting new adopters, etc.

We have a prime example above where something *may* have been able to have been done to avoid that little girl from being killed - it may not have helped, of course, they may have been able to hide the actions/cruelty from cameras, but just as possible, they may have forgot or maybe they'd have shown them being verbally abusive, but not physically violent, but something that would have been enough to get the kid to safety.

It's not too late if the kid shows up with bruises and then the video is checked and the kid is seen to have been treated badly. That kids would then be able to be taken to safety. You're trying to suggest that that isn't good enough and the kid isn't any better off. I disagree. I think in this hypothetical scenario then kid has escaped further abuse, possibly death thanks to the fact that social services have some video evidence of improper care. Just like the elderly and children that have been saved from abuse in other places.

Would it have been too late if the girl in the story above was taken in to protection after getting some 'mysterious bruising' after the attitude/treatment towards her was seen to be bad in video footage checked after the child was first seen to have had the bruising? Of course not. Obviously there may not have been anything on the footage... but there COULD have been. And that girl would maybe still be alive.

As for all the other kids who are adopted and have great guardians who treat them great and look after them, after the certain period, the cameras are taken down, and footage destroyed and on they go with their lives. The cameras can then move on to the next case, installed quickly and easily, there we go... another temporary layer of child protection to potentially weed out evil headers that may not have the self control for a child, once they've been in their care for a while, away from the gaze of social services.

0 |

But there is no problem in adoption with abuse outside of rare cases. That's what I'm trying really hard to explain.

It would take major changes to laws and regulations around adoption that would need passed by parliament. To push such changes you need a big enough problem to warrant it.

What can be seen as an issue is child abuse, not focussed on adoption, again that's not the issue. This case can be put with the ones I linked above for a case to changes in laws around child protection and early assesment of potential violence towards children.

Why do you think there is a massive issue with adoption?

1 |

I guess you are pushing it as a deterrent in adopted families.

I'm saying first it's more common in non adopted families so you are focusing in the wrong area

Secondly I think the focus should be prevention and early intervention rather than observing and dealing with after.

Also I honestly believe the entire process is far more complicated than you say

But hey we just are disagreeing on both the the problem and the solution lol

Difficult to meet in the middle

1 |

Not sure how adopters would feel 'victimised' by having a couple of cameras up in the livingroom and kitchen for a few months for the safety of the child. The footage would only need to be looked at if there was any cause for concern, too i.e. "suffered a broken leg and mystery bruises".

Why not put it in all parents houses then? Why target adopting families only? As Muzka said, adoption cases like this are a lot rarer. If cameras were a viable option it would need to be for all people having children regardless. Especially since parents don't get assessed before daddy spunks his load in mummy and gets her pregnant.

1 |

"But there is no problem in adoption with abuse outside of rare cases. That's what I'm trying really hard to explain."

Fair enough, but IMO I think the death/killing of a child by an adopter is a massive problem, no matter how rare it is.

"It would take major changes to laws and regulations around adoption that would need passed by parliament. To push such changes you need a big enough problem to warrant it."

From that link I've posted twice now it seems that a fair amount of the laws and regulations are already set up. Fair enough, something extra may have to be looked into in regards the cameras going in to a private home, but as I said, adopters probably have many, many private aspects of their life looked into for safety and security reason when it comes to adoption. It may not require too much extra to get the legalities sorted. Plus, if adopters know before hand that this is a short term requirement, for the protection of the child and that no data is used unless there is reasonable concern, then I'm not sure many people would be against it, especially if they do really care about children. Surely they'd be able to see that the slight, short term hassle it may give them may also save the life of a kid somewhere else.

"What can be seen as an issue is child abuse, not focussed on adoption, again that's not the issue. This case can be put with the ones I linked above for a case to changes in laws around child protection and early assesment of potential violence towards children.

Why do you think there is a massive issue with adoption?"

Of course it's child abuse, but it's child abuse by an adopter. So that is the context in what this whole thing was about. I have never said there is a massive issue with adoption. You keep bringing that up. I'm talking about ways that could maybe help avoid what happened to that girl from happening again. It may not catch all crimes, but it might help.

What's your suggestions out of interest? More interviews with potential adopters? More background checks? Going to special classes? Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts/suggestions on ways you could maybe protect kids after they initially go in to a new home (especially with adopters who are new to the system).

0 |

Cameras seem a bit OTT and hard to implement. A catch-up with social worker every three/six months for the first X years of adoption would suffice IMO. Interview the kids alone without adopters in the room and if they're too small to communicate properly then make it a medical check for physical abuse until they are able to talk. Interview the adopters also.

0 |

Firstly takki I don't think adopters as such need targeted. I think from birth there needs to be more report and supervision of a child's development. Schools, nurseries, gps etc working together.

I don't think adoption needs tightened as such because I think this case you are talking about he could have easily played cool for the period he had cams then snap after.

1 |

The argument about why only target adopting parents... It's the social services/government agencies responsibility to try and protect those children and when they are handing the kids over to someone else, they need to do what they can to ensure the kids are protected/treated as best as possible.

I mean, if you're saying 'why not do it in all families houses?' etc then should we just scrap *all* the safety/security vetting that is down by social services when potential adopters come forward? No, of course not. But certain aspects as care and safety have to be guaranteed as best as possible when a child is being handed into the care of someone else.

0 |

It's the social services/government agencies responsibility to try and protect those childre

Technically they are responsible for protecting all children.

0 |

AndyW • 4 minutes ago
Cameras seem a bit OTT and hard to implement. A catch-up with social worker every three/six months for the first X years of adoption would suffice IMO. Interview the kids alone without adopters in the room and if they're too small to communicate properly then make it a medical check for physical abuse until they are able to talk. Interview the adopters also.

Is that not pretty much the way it is now? Yet abuse slips through occasionally/proven there's been abuse can be hard.

0 |

s2 • 0 minutes ago
Technically they are responsible for protecting all children.

So anyone should just be able to adopt with zero checks? The way two people are pretty much able to have kids without checks?

0 |

Also think neighbors hearing the abuse should have reported. More awareness that yelling at a child is technically a type of abuse. Hence why I thought smacking ban was a good idea, changes public perception of what's acceptable.

0 |

Did i say that? There should be rigorous checks, not cameras. I'm agreeing with Muzka that cameras are not the solution. Easily avoided, expensive etc etc.

1 |

s2 • 3 minutes ago
Did i say that? There should be rigorous checks, not cameras. I'm agreeing with Muzka that cameras are not the solution. Easily avoided, expensive etc etc.

"Why not put it in all parents houses then? Why target adopting families only? As Muzka said, adoption cases like this are a lot rarer. If cameras were a viable option it would need to be for all people having children regardless. Especially since parents don't get assessed before daddy spunks his load in mummy and gets her pregnant."

^^ you said that if cameras where to be put in new adopters houses then it would "need to be for all people having children regardless". By that logic, should we scrap the other safety/security measures used when adopters come forward too then? What makes cameras any different from two people having their bank accounts analysed, or their homes checked, or their police records looked into?

0 |

Not sure what you mean, are you saying there's no difference with 24hr recorded home videoing and having you bank account checked?

I know you disagree but I believe it would deter adopters. There isn't any correlation with adoption and abuse so you'd be drastically changing legislation on the basis there is a high enough risk to warrant it. That means you are saying there is enough potential that each adopter could be an abuser beyond what current checks could find.

It would definitely have an impact.

I'm not going to link but have a Google at the strain adoption agencies are under finding homes for children. If anything those people need more praise and focus moved to those having the children removed, not those picking up the pieces.

1 |

He's always at this carry on takki. Know it all.

Should stick to hip hop

0 |

SHITE PM

lol

0 |

Muzka • 14 minutes ago
Firstly takki I don't think adopters as such need targeted. I think from birth there needs to be more report and supervision of a child's development. Schools, nurseries, gps etc working together.

I don't think adoption needs tightened as such because I think this case you are talking about he could have easily played cool for the period he had cams then snap after.

It's not about adopters being "targeted" or "victimised" lol. It's about ensuring a child's safety and ensuring that abuse and potential killings by sick fucks (like the guy who killed that girl) are avoided as much as possible. Strangely you seem more interested in how the adopters feel or would view this than the possible protection it would give to vulnerable children. Like I've said numerous times, if potential adopters had a problem with cameras (which were only used in the case of evidence gathering or emergency) why would that be? Why would someone who was wanting to care and look after a child be so concerned with a few temp cameras?

"Also think neighbors hearing the abuse should have reported. More awareness that yelling at a child is technically a type of abuse. Hence why I thought smacking ban was a good idea, changes public perception of what's acceptable."

If it's loud enough for neighbours to hear but do fuck all about, then it would be loud enough for cameras to pick up and maybe social services do something about after finding mysterious bruising. Of course more awareness would be good, but that's like saying more awareness about not punching kids would be good, also.

0 |

Adults talking Barry, stick to telling stories about local hoods lol

Can't even work out how to pm ffs :)

1 |

I give up

Ok it's a good idea, my bad. I'm sure it will be implemented next year, no brained really

1 |

What limited experience I have of adoption I don't believe there's regular meetings after the adoption have been approved and implemented takki. More a come to us if you've any problems type support. All the current checks are done prior to adoption and at the very start when they're settling in.

0 |

Not sure Andy. They probably have a family advice worker that meets during a settling in period..

I'd say if the kid from an abused background and had been removed from a parent legally they'd have a social worker and maybe some kind of therapist that would check in

0 |

If that's the case Andy it sounds like would def be a great place to start. Especially for young kids/new adopters, like the girl in the story.

0 |

I know a couple who adopted 2 brothers after social services removed them from their birth parents. Very tough vetting and long period of testing to get through it. Also in that case the birth parents have visiting rights. Dedication to the kids and the process is a big thing. You do spend a lot of time and effort adopting. Makes that guys crimes even worse tbf.

1 |

Just catching up on all this. Muzka speaking a lot of sense on the matter. Has Takki a load of cameras he's trying to flog or something?

Incessantly trying to push the bonkers camera solution despite the massively obvious flaws being repeatedly pointed out.

Muzka • 6 hours, 5 minutes ago
I love how stubborn you are on here. It's a shite idea that would never work lol

THIS

1 |

lol took you quite a while to add your useless 2 cents on this one, TJ. You're slipping lad. You need to try harder.

0 |

Genuinely though Takki your fixation with that moronic camera idea was equal parts funny and shocking.

you should probably have just admitted so earlier instead of stubbornly persevering with it.

3 |

lol your fixation and desperation to be the forum comedian for years blows anything out of the water. I'd thought you'd maybe had a wee re-evaluation and decided to give the persona a rest saying you weren't chirping in, but alas.

0 |