Star Hobson

That scumbag needs to die in there - complete scumbag

Hope she gets seriously attacked in there. She deserves nothing less than a life of hell.

 

No doubt be in a secure area to protect her.
Don't get how evil gets protection from the authorities but the poor victim didn't, it's heartbreaking

 

Apparently had 2 cardiac arrests whilst on remand let’s hope for a 3rd and they turn a blind eye to her for about 2hrs

 

It is my understanding that 5 times I'll treatment of Star Hobson was referred to Bradford Council children's services.

I understand the director of children's services has quit just before the trial having joined the council in 2019.

Are the council leader and chief executive intending to continue regardless? The statement from Susan Hinchcliffe suggest lessons are to be learned, which quite frankly is an insult, and suggests she doesn't see anyone running Bradford Council as accountable for what has happened.

I notice a full council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday but cancelled as the verdict of the trial came in with "Omicron" cited as the reason it could not take place. One would suggest this full council meeting was cancelled not due to "Omicron" but to prevent difficult questions being asked of those who run Bradford Council.

 

The irony here is Brockhill has more protection now from the authorities than the poor little kid did.

 

Bradford Children's and Social services should be disbanded and Government appointed experts brought in to run and then train new staff, In the meantime the Chief Exec who is obviously not up to running the council should be sacked

 

The Chief Exec is not going give up a £250k a year job, so I think it is time she was removed from her post.

 

I can't comment on the specifics of this, as I don't know. Apart from obviously, it is hideous.

I am not looking to provide excuses, however, I will flag the huge drop in funding for Children's Services over the past ten years.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/26/childrens-services-financial-crisis-big-five-charities

I've just picked one article at random, but there are plenty of reports out there highlighting this. I know that in Manchester, to save money on pensions etc, there was a move employ agency staff as social workers rather than as employees. This increased the turnover of staff and consequently meant that specific children might have multiple social workers involved. Lots of tacit knowledge was lost between handovers and it increased the complexity of communications between multiple agencies.

Case workloads for children's services were increasing, and have continued to increase, at a time when budgets were being cut. This has continued over the past ten years.

I know some of this because we adopted a child and worked closely with children's services for the best part of three years. I know the strain that our social workers were under at that time.

Of course, in any area of employment, mistakes will be made and some people will not be effective in their roles (for whatever reasons). However, you cannot break the time/cost/quality dynamic. If you stamp down on cost then something has to give.

Similarly, those on the front-line in any role are at the mercy of the systems and processes that they are part of. If those systems and processes are not fit for purpose, then you get poor outcomes.

I agree absolutely that there needs to be a thorough review, but there also needs to be a wider discussion about how we are protecting vulnerable children in our society and what we can do to reduce this need over time.

 

Following up @Hulmebantam point, what rights do social workers and the police have to check on these vulnerable children if their families are shielding them from inspection?

If the children are not at home for house visits can you bring in the family/lovers/scrotes to the local station and withhold benefits etc until the state is satisfied in the child's safety?
Or is that considered too draconian.
Teachers are asked to be on the look-out for signs of physical/mental abuse as well as trying to educate.

 

Great post!

 

I'm sure that funding is an issue but 5 separate referrals not been followed up is much deeper than a funding excuse.

 

Which is why I also referred to systems and processes as well individual error and yes there does appear to be a deep seated problem.

However, there are consequences to reducing funding to Children's Services.

 

At some point funding becomes the perpetual excuse.

If something is done badly just throw more money at it and it will be done better is the rationale.

Not for me. This wasn't a time or a man power issue, it a pure incompetence issue and it can't be solved by funding.

The poor little kid in this had an awful life and im delighted the lunatic involved is going to be having a nightmare time of it behind bars but Star deserves better than people conflicting the actual issues that failed her.

 

Do you have any idea about the systems and processes that ultimately failed her? Do you know the actual issues that led to this awful thing happening?

I agree with you that it was 'incompetence', and that is unforgivable. But what incompetence? What information was received? By who? Where was it recorded? What capability does that system or process have to aggregate and flag issues? Where does this information go? What communications were sent? How?

Similarly, to dismiss time and resource as an issue appears premature. If demand exceeds supply, then something has to give.

I'll leave it at that, because I genuinely do not want to be disrespectful to the poor girl.

 

Yes, my kids mum works with severely underprivileged kids so I get more insight in to systems and processes than I would sometimes actually like.

5 referrals from close family and friends with no actual action isn't a funding problem or a process problem. It's simply a failing somewhere in the chain of people who should have acted and didn't. This isn't a demand exceeding supply issue. She didn't fall through the cracks. People went to see her and they made the wrong calls.

Funding for social services is a valid subject, it's just not valid in this case. To solve the issues they need to get to the heart of what actually occurred not just the generic and glib "more money solves all". As you say the poor kid deserves for the actual issues to get solved, not ones that aren't related to her.

 

Top post

 

Of course funding is a valid subject in this case. You cannot ignore the disastrous effects of eleven years of cuts when trying to understand why this tragedy happened. Child protection services in Bradford were once amongst the very best in the country but have been going downhill for years.

I worked in Bradford social services for 32 years. Most of that was in mental health and training unit but the first eight years were at the Eccleshill/Idle Area Office, covering three tough council estates - Greengates, Ravenscliffe and Thorpe Edge. We were supposedly 'generic' in those days but 90% of the work was child protection. Some of that work was genuinely scary. I had alarms installed in my house, paid for by Social Services, because of threats towards me and my family by angry fathers of abused kids.
When I started in 1984, as a newly qualified social worker, I was 28, having come to social work late after 5 years in the civil service. Most newly qualifieds, however, are 21/22, straight from school into uni and then into practice - barely more than kids. When I started, as a Level 1 social worker, I was the only rookie in the office - the rest were at least Level 2 and most were Level 3s with years of experience. I was nurtured by wise old heads, with a relatively protected caseload - allowed to gain experience until I was ready to take on the really heavy end cases. Even then the caseloads were manageable, allowing enough time for discussion and reflection when making tough decisions with lifelong implications for parents and children.

For years now the situation in Bradford Children's Services has been chalk and cheese from the one I experienced. Years of relentless cuts have reduced staffing at the same time that austerity has increased deprivation, and hence demand - Bradford has one of the worst child poverty levels in the country. Poverty and child abuse are inextricably linked. The result has been a recruitment and retention crisis of gargantuan proportions. Experienced permanent staff are like hens' teeth - they've either retired or moved to other local authorities with less challenging social conditions and often higher pay. Bradford used to be one of the highest payers of SW salaries regionally, but those days are long gone, with all the budget cuts that hit Bradford harder than some neighbouring authorities.

The net result is that Bradford child protection teams are full of kids and agency workers and the staff churn is relentless. Newly qualifieds and agency workers arrive and are immediately dumped with ridiculous numbers of heavy end cases with no opportunity to gain experience in controlled conditions. Most of the newly qualifieds leave pretty quickly, having been traumatised by the overwhelming nature of what's asked of them. Many drop out of social work altogether. The agency staff move on to other authorities, having no loyalty to Bradford or desire to work in such unfavourable circumstances. So it becomes a vicious circle because word gets around and the worse the situation gets, the tougher it is to recruit experienced staff or hang on to newly qualifieds long enough for them to get properly competent.

So, yes, obviously there were serious errors made by social work staff in the Star Hobson case. But those errors were almost certainly made by inexperienced staff operating in unacceptably tough conditions. And you can't disentangle the chaos from the economic circumstances that have produced it.
This account from an experienced agency worker just about nails it:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/17/scariest-place-ive-worked-social-worker-recalls-stint-in-bradford?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

A brilliant, but harrowing post.

I have nothing but respect and compassion for what you do.

 

I basically agree with the article in which it provides a number of reasons for the failings but as usual it just always come back to money and it's not good enough. Throwing more money at a poorly organised an chaotic department doesnt solve the issues.

Should these vital services get more money? Yes. Should the people who choose to work in these areas be called out when they mess up so catastrophically. Also yes. But some people only want to see one side of that coin. Basically the perception of being "underfunded" gives carte blance to be incompetent and that's not right.

I can't get out of my head that there were 5 referrals in this case. All investigated (one on the actual same day) and subsequently closed. That to me doesn't sound like a workload issue, it sounds like simply poor investigations and decision making.

Just because you and people of a similar mindset want every single public services to be given more and more money let's not make excuses and assumptions when people clearly don't do just an important job well.