Did you only read the first two words of my post? Seems so.
I'm saying the council
is not to blame at all, as if you remove the variable of the council,
you still have a dead child. Who's to say that in the long term, the courts wouldn't have allowed the parents to have their kid back (has happened before - parents have taken councils to court over that !@#$%, often quite rightly) and the child would've died only a little bit later?
Haringey where well aware of what was happening. Social Workers, neighbours and even a !@#$% police officer complained to them that there was mistreatment going on, yet Haringey did !@#$% all?
Social workers, neighbours and even a !@#$% police officer all apparently did !@#$% all other than complain. Besides, you're ignoring so many other variables - what do you think the council really should've done, considering other workloads at the time and the resources available to them?
And the criticisms that they probably would've suffered had they not returned the child? I mean, everyone would be all "You took their baby away! The government is stealing our children!" etc.
What statement to the media did they provide for why they didn't act? Oh yeah thats right they provided a single piece of paper with a statistic on it showing cases they've prevented. Wtf?
Yes, because a council is meant to be omnipresent, and do everything to prevent anything ever happening. That's why all people totally advocate the use of survellaince cameras in all private homes to allow councils to do their jobs unimpeded.
I'm not denying that the parents are to blame, but if Haringey actually did their !@#$% jobs then the child might still be alive.
Might. Are the police to blame for every robbery? I mean, if they did their job, there would be no robberies. Ironically, if Haringey did an even worse job than they did, there would be no story as no-one would know about it.
Is the army to blame for every death of a soldier or civilian in Iraq? They knew that was gonna happen, yet they failed to stop it! Oh noes!
Law of Armed Conflict states that all possible steps must be taken into account to prevent or lesson Civilian casualties. Meaning, if the predicted Civilian casualty is too high the operation cant go forward (Unless the Operation saves far more lives then the predicted amount).
No, you ignored what I said entirely: Answer, directly, is the army to blame for every death that occurs and has occured in Iraq since occupation? By your argument, since they are there, in theory, to prevent the loss of innocent life, is every single death the fault of the army? That's what you're suggesting the council should be capable of doing; preventing every negative occurence that is covered by their jurisdiction, which is virtually impossible.
Do you know what really pisses me off? Sure, council !@#$% up, that's not so great. But do you know who's really to blame? One hundred per cent, totally, down to the parents. No-one else. Even worse than that? It wouldn't be such a big deal for the media had the kid been asian or black. White kids? !@#$%, gotta cover that !@#$%, could be the next Maddy.
