Sara Sharif murder: ‘sadist’ father and stepmother jailed for life

[AnnO'Neemus]

I've had my own dealings with social services involving my own son and his mother's new partner. Their approach was to go over there and interview mum and her partner, who presented a perfectly polished performance and everything was dropped. The next time I saw my son he said it was still going on. So I called them back, eventually they came back to me and said they'd closed the case. 'Nothing to see here'

I don't get the impression they're particularly overloaded. It's the public sector. I've worked in it. Everything happens at a glacial pace. I do however appreciate being a social worker is not fun. I do, however, think that when my son was being 'interviewed', the guy in question shouldnt have been sitting next to him. To me that seems basic.

In Sara's case, yes, there has to be a serious enquiry. It was also interesting that the judge went a bit off script there and questioned why home schooling isn't more closely monitored.

Holy shit, surely that's not just poor practice but should explicitly be bad practice for which they're reprimanded and their fitness to practice called into question?

 

[MickiQ]

This just isn't the case.

There are plenty of ways to safeguard against it, and reserving the big one only for scum like this would probably be the most effective.

No there aren't that's the problem. You can't execute people based on public outrage because mission-creep is inevitable. No matter how much this particular individual deserves the death penalty (and I wouldn't argue that he does) there will always be public pressure to hang more. There is no acceptable ratio of executing guilty vs innocent other than 100% to 0% and that is just not achievable.

 

[Thora]

Holy shit, surely that's not just poor practice but should explicitly be bad practice for which they're reprimanded and their fitness to practice called into question?

I think people are often surprised about how limited social workers powers are and how much social work is carried out only with consent.
A social worker generally needs a parent's permission to interview their child.

 

[Spymaster]

No there aren't that's the problem. You can't execute people based on public outrage because mission-creep is inevitable. No matter how much this particular individual deserves the death penalty (and I wouldn't argue that he does) there will always be public pressure to hang more. There is no acceptable ratio of executing guilty vs innocent other than 100% to 0% and that is just not achievable.

That's simply not true, Micki. It used to be; and it would be without implementing the safeguards and making significant changes to legal system, but it can be done.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

That's simply not true, Micki. It used to be; and it would be without implementing the safeguards and making significant changes to legal system, but it can be done.

How fortuitous the Birmingham 4 and Guildford 6 weren’t convicted during a period when such safeguards were operative

 

[Spymaster]

How fortuitous the Birmingham 4 and Guildford 6 weren’t convicted during a period when such safeguards were operative

That's what I meant by "used to be".

The safeguards were never operative.

Times have changed.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Was reading about Sara's case before, can't find it right now but it said Surrey Social Services deals with 4000 reports a month. That's a lot...

and yet the Scum Streeting wants to add potentially thousands more reports to that with a ideologically motivated attack on parents who seek evidence based care ofr gender Incongruence children and teens

 

[steeplejack]

It's better for him to spend 40 years in prison as a hate figure, with all the implications that carries in there, than die at the end of a rope in three weeks' time. It's actually much more of a punishment than more or less instant death after a short period of fear. Plus we withold from the state's (imperfect) legal and incarceration systems the right to perhaps (wrongly) take someone's life away.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of batteries in socks, boiling water, shit in food, shanks, and hands shut in metal doors ahead of him.

I get the desire for revenge, making sure a bully and psychotic sadist thug feels a lot of pain and fear, but humanity should simply have moved beyond the death penalty. Plus everything people have said about actually re-stitching a social care and social work safety net that works for those who need it, not for greedy privateers offshoring profit at the expense of victims who may otherwise have been spared much of the harm.

Sadly whatever systems are in place awful stories of cruelty to children come about with depressing regularity. Child's rights are light years ahead of where they were in the 1970s when children were regularly thrashed for misdemanours at school and no one thought anything of it. No one knows the answer in this country beyond expecting Scandinavian levels of public service for American levels of tax.

 

[emanymton]

That's what I meant by "used to be".

Times have changed.

No system can 100% safe from error though.

The most recent problematic case I can think of is Letby. I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, I tend to assume guilty. But there is clearly some room for doubt in the case and I am open to being wrong.

Are you suggesting a sort of 3rd level of guilty verdict?

A "the bastard is guilty and everyone knows it" verdict?

Edit - does this discussion maybe need a thread of it's own, wouldn't want to derail this one?

 

[InArduisFouette]

I think people are often surprised about how limited social workers powers are and how much social work is carried out only with consent.
A social worker generally needs a parent's permission to interview their child.

indeed, and Safeguarding training for NHS and education staff is often ' consider do you need to get the police to invoke their emergency child / vulernable adult protection powers ' rather than refer to Social w**kers ( also note how many people in healthcare and education will make reference to Social workers with some mumbling of those second and third letters

 

[seeformiles]

This just isn't the case.

There are plenty of ways to safeguard against it, and reserving the big one only for scum like this would be one of the most effective.

My problem with the DP is that it's also too quick and merciful for human shite like that. What's a quick hanging vs decades of likely living hell?

 

[Spymaster]

Are you suggesting a sort of 3rd level of guilty verdict?

A "the bastard is guilty and everyone knows it" verdict?

Edit - does this discussion maybe need a thread of it's own, wouldn't want to derail this one?

Absolutely.

Among other things.

But yes. Sorry to derail.

 

[A380]

No system can 100% safe from error though.

The most recent problematic case I can think of is Letby. I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, I tend to assume guilty. But there is clearly some room for doubt in the case and I am open to being wrong.

Are you suggesting a sort of 3rd level of guilty verdict?

A "the bastard is guilty and everyone knows it" verdict?

Edit - does this discussion maybe need a thread of it's own, wouldn't want to derail this one?

Scotland have that, and it’s called the bastard verdict. The official name is ‘Not Proven’. It legally carries the same outcomes as not guilty but it’s probably a little bit better for survivors of crime.

It’s one of the things, like single malts, cows, and officialdom’s treatment of migrants that Scotland do better than England and Wales.

 

[Spymaster]

Scotland have that, and it’s called the bastard verdict. The official name is ‘Not Proven’.

That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting!

And it's silly.

 

[A380]

That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting!

And it's silly.

You tell that to the Scots

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It's better for him to spend 40 years in prison as a hate figure, with all the implications that carries in there, than die at the end of a rope in three weeks' time. It's actually much more of a punishment than more or less instant death after a short period of fear. Plus we withold from the state's (imperfect) legal and incarceration systems the right to perhaps (wrongly) take someone's life away.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of batteries in socks, boiling water, shit in food, shanks, and hands shut in metal doors ahead of him.

I get the desire for revenge, making sure a bully and psychotic sadist thug feels a lot of pain and fear, but humanity should simply have moved beyond the death penalty. Plus everything people have said about actually re-stitching a social care and social work safety net that works for those who need it, not for greedy privateers offshoring profit at the expense of victims who may otherwise have been spared much of the harm.

Sadly whatever systems are in place awful stories of cruelty to children come about with depressing regularity. Child's rights are light years ahead of where they were in the 1970s when children were regularly thrashed for misdemanours at school and no one thought anything of it. No one knows the answer in this country beyond expecting Scandinavian levels of public service for American levels of tax.

Maybe kids don't get thrashed in schools any more, but there's still a weird cognitive dissonance thing going on in UK society whereby many parents still believe that it's acceptable to thrash your own or your partner's child(ren) as a punishment for being naughty/as a means of enforcing discipline.

I'll never understand why the kind of behaviour that would get you arrested, eg if you battered a stranger in the street, generally isn't an arrestable offence in the privacy of your own home if it's a grown-ass adult, who's bigger and stronger and more physically powerful who's doing that to a child in their care, given society generally turns a blind eye to it, unless/until it's taken to horrific extremes.

 

[eatmorecheese]

I spent a year as a social worker in Surrey. I was barely supervised, had to manage complex cases, I had never worked in Child Protection before and every single minute felt unsafe. The service was rated as 'inadequate' for years. I got out after a year.

I ended up thinking I was a shit social worker. I'm still haunted by my time there. I still wonder about the kids I worked with, whether they are safe now and whether I failed them.

Anyway, about to do a home visit now. I don't have the luxury of emotional detachment and am finding it hard to read the news and accounts of this case. A bit weepy.

Go and hug your kids and tell them you love them.

 

[dessiato]

I was once threatened with punishment, it never came. I was told then that the fear of the punishment was greater than the punishment. It's right.

I hope these two live in fear of punishment every single day of their lives.

No matter how badly behaved a 10 year old is there's absolutely no justification for even one tenth of what this poor child suffered.

 

[danny la rouge]

Scotland have that, and it’s called the bastard verdict. The official name is ‘Not Proven’. It legally carries the same outcomes as not guilty but it’s probably a little bit better for survivors of crime.

It’s one of the things, like single malts, cows, and officialdom’s treatment of migrants that Scotland do better than England and Wales.

This is where I get to be pedantic. Hooray!

The outcome with the Not Proven verdict was an accident. Originally in Scots Law, the verdicts were Proven and Not Proven. The logic being that it was up to the allegations to be proven or not proven, and that’s what the trial was entrusted with deciding. (Innocence being presumed and all that).

But people started to say they wanted to be declared Innocent like in England. So Innocent and Guilty were grafted onto a perfectly logical system, making it make less sense. And Not Proven was kept because it still made sense with regards to the entire way the legal system is supposed to work. (Presumed innocence, it’s up to the allegations brought to prove themselves, and so on).

Every now and then there are calls for it to be reformed. If it is, it makes more sense to me to remove Innocent and Guilty and restore Proven in their place.

 

[A380]

This is where I get to be pedantic. Hooray!

The outcome with the Not Proven verdict was an accident. Originally in Scots Law, the verdicts were Proven and Not Proven. The logic being that it was up to the allegations to be proven or not proven, and that’s what the trial was entrusted with deciding. (Innocence being presumed and all that).

But people started to say they wanted to be declared Innocent like in England. So Innocent and Guilty were grafted onto a perfectly logical system, making it make less sense. And Not Proven was kept because it still made sense with regards to the entire way the legal system is supposed to work. (Presumed innocence, it’s up to the allegations brought to prove themselves, and so on).

Every now and then there are calls for it to be reformed. If it is, it makes more sense to me to remove Innocent and Guilty and restore Proven in their place.

But you still have three, whereas we have two.

And I still think your cows, or should that be cooos, are better.

 

[danny la rouge]

But you still have three, whereas we have two.

And I still think your cows, or should that be cooos, are better.

Oh, kye (the plural of coo) are magnificent.

 

[emanymton]

This is where I get to be pedantic. Hooray!

The outcome with the Not Proven verdict was an accident. Originally in Scots Law, the verdicts were Proven and Not Proven. The logic being that it was up to the allegations to be proven or not proven, and that’s what the trial was entrusted with deciding. (Innocence being presumed and all that).

But people started to say they wanted to be declared Innocent like in England. So Innocent and Guilty were grafted onto a perfectly logical system, making it make less sense. And Not Proven was kept because it still made sense with regards to the entire way the legal system is supposed to work. (Presumed innocence, it’s up to the allegations brought to prove themselves, and so on).

Every now and then there are calls for it to be reformed. If it is, it makes more sense to me to remove Innocent and Guilty and restore Proven in their place.

I like not proven. I don't like the popular idea that being found not guilty means someone didn't don't it snd you can no longer say they did.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sorry to have contributed to a derail on this thread, though. It’s a shocking case, and I have no intention of undermining the gravity or the seriousness that Sara deserves.

 

[two sheds]

...
(what danny said)

 

[Lotte]

Apparently the father had been reported to the police by at least three ex-partners for domestic violence. But nothing was done.

You know what the worst thing is about this? I'm not even surprised, because DV and rape aren't taken seriously. And incidentally, this is why the possibility of us emulating Argentina is so dangerous. Even more cuts to social services will mean more cases like Sarah Sharif's and nobody doing anything until it's too late.

I can't read the details. That poor little girl. How could you do that to a child?

 

[A380]

I know. But often the only two choices are to collapse in a ball of pain or try to laugh about thinks ancillary to the situation. But never the people involved in the situation.

 

[Lotte]

Also, saying 'bring back the death penalty for child abusers' is all very well, but there's one huge problem: it could be used to keep victims quiet. "You don't want Daddy to die, do you?" Abusers could easily manipulate their victims into silence by saying that they'll die if the victim tells the police. So would the family members who enable them. I don't think they should ever be allowed out but the idea of bringing back the death penalty for child abusers is going to cause a whole lot of problems.

Killing them will not bring Sara back. It will not deter others from abusing their children. And anyone who thinks this mean I condone child abuse can fuck off.

 

[Petcha]

Also, saying 'bring back the death penalty for child abusers' is all very well, but there's one huge problem: it could be used to keep victims quiet. "You don't want Daddy to die, do you?" Abusers could easily manipulate their victims into silence by saying that they'll die if the victim tells the police. So would the family members who enable them. I don't think they should ever be allowed out but the idea of bringing back the death penalty for child abusers is going to cause a whole lot of problems.

Killing them will not bring Sara back. It will not deter others from abusing their children.

I know. I was upset when I posted that. I don't want the death penalty brought back. I do hope though they are not put in particularly protective custody in jail. Anyone who heard that summary from the judge would want to 'have a word'. A bit of boiling water maybe? Like they applied to her, while she was hog tied?

 

[klang]

It also undermines the underlying causes for child abuse.

 

[Lotte]

I know. I was upset when I posted that. I don't want the death penalty brought back. I do hope though they are not put in particularly protective custody in jail. Anyone who heard that summary from the judge would want to 'have a word'. A bit of boiling water maybe? Like they applied to her, while she was hog tied?

It wasn't you I meant, it was Spymaster. Anyway, I'm sure they'll get beaten up in prison, people will know who they are and what they did.