Metropol

Chie wrote:

Sput wrote:I'd still say your original statement lays blame at their feet with a statement that could applied to anyone that ever came into contact with the kid. Neighbours, friends...

I don't see why you've come to that conclusion, since neighbours and friends aren't legally responsible for preventing harm to children and Social Services are.

Which means you're saying they should be punished! That's where my original point lies. You seem to content to blame the frontline without any knowledge of the systematic situation.

Another helpful hint: If I don't say "chie" or quote you personally, I'm probably not talking to you.

Sput wrote:Which means you're saying they should be punished! That's where my original point lies. You seem to content to blame the frontline without any knowledge of the systematic situation.

No I'm just saying they didn't do what they could have done. Their punishment - or whether they ought to be punished at all - isn't for me to decide.

I didn't realise Sput was deciding their punishment earlier in the thread.