The Massive Incompetence of Government

H/T Anna Raccoon:

A boy of 7 died in suspicious circumstances. He suffered head injuries which killed him. The parents claimed that he fell off the couch and hit his head on the carpeted floor.

The boy is described as ‘child K’; his name was actually ‘Blake’. The mother was described as ‘Ms L’. She insisted that the father of ‘K’ was ‘Mr X’, but DNA tests later revealed that the father was ‘Mr A’, a guy whom ‘Ms L’ had a shag with.  She also had two younger children whose fathers were ‘Mr C’ and ‘Mr X’. All these people were in their mid-twenties when K died. Oh, and there was a ‘Mr Y’, the brother of ‘Mr X’, who does not really figure in the shagging quartet. Some of the males has criminal records for a variety of transgressions and ‘Mr X’ had been imprisoned.

This ‘family’ (LOL) was in a mess: a massive, massive mess. The group might just as well have been animals with human characteristics. Ms L and Mr X hated each other but shagged and shagged. They constantly came to blows. It seems that Mr X thought that Mr C was the father of K (when it was actually Mr A who was the father), and threatened to kill Mr C. There are implications in the report that Mr X resented the presence of K and ill-treated him for that reason.

All of this stuff had not gone unnoticed. The Social Services were onto the case. So were the police as a result of being called out when neighbours reported screams and arguments.

Somehow or other, FIFTEEN government or quasi-government organisations got involved. Some of them were government funded organisations which were intended to support women subjected to violence from men. Thus, Ms L could do no wrong. Any problems were caused by Mr X, who was “big, strong and intimidating”. Reading between the lines (and this is brought out in the report by inference), the social services were concentrating on Ms L as a VICTIM of violence, and failed to see the danger to the children.

Oddly enough, Ms L’s mother saw through it and wrote to the social services describing her worries about the children. Social Services took no notice. Some workers in the vicinity saw this kid, bruised and battered, and reported what they had seen to the NSPCC. The NSPCC reported to the Social services which did………NOTHING. Well, they sent someone round to have a chat with Ms L.

And then K (Blake) was killed, either by accident, neglect or deliberately. No one knows, and the Police are not going to charge anyone with anything.

If you want to read the report, here it is:


In my opinion, the report is a classic whitewash. It seems, as you read it, to be hard-hitting, but the reality is that it spreads ‘blame’ thinly over all the people and agencies involved in Government, without actually pointing out where the precise failure occurred. For example, if my central heating fails, I want to know what precisely was the fault and how to fix it. I do not want someone to examine every component and assess that component’s  weakness. Just fix/replace the component which broke.

So what actually happened to Blake which killed him? The report does not say. It does not even describe, in detail, what the trauma to his head was. Was he bludgeoned by a blunt instrument? Was his skull fractured? Did he just have bleeding in his brain for no obvious reason? Where other parts of his body injured?


That event, if you read the report, suggests to me that The Government Monopoly must be broken up. It is monolithic. It cannot deal with individual cases.

Our Representatives, MPs, as we vote for them, regardless of Party Affiliations, must be automatically against any restriction on our freedoms in order to avoid being a monolith. There is no such thing as a Party Affiliation which permits the destruction of our freedoms. Our freedoms are not for sale.


4 Responses to “The Massive Incompetence of Government”

  1. Samuel Says:

    Hmmmmmmm. Let’s see. The woman doesn’t work (probably never has). She ‘associates’ with career criminals and drug abusers who also, probably, do not work and never have. They all get a free ride via government at the expense of people who do work and, thus, are ripe for plucking in the form of taxes. They receive “free” housing, “free” food, “free” education and clearly have access to cash to buy tobacco, booze and other drugs. A system that rewards idleness, criminality and guilt free fornicating. How could anyone find fault with any part of this?

    • junican Says:

      I personally find that view a little simplistic, to be honest. It sort of assumes that none of these people wanted to work, and the report does not say whether any of them did or not. So we are guessing really. I vaguely imagine a group of young people with not much hope or expectation in life, grabbing what pleasure they can while they can, taking each day as it comes. I can imagine a lot of frustration. My point is that the social services officers were looking in the wrong direction by focussing upon the needs of the poor, defenceless, young woman and mother against these brutal, exploitative men. That’s what happens when dogma (in this case, feminism) gets in the way.

  2. J Brown Says:

    The system is meant as a safety net for those who actually need it – and there are many who legitimately do. Sadly, you will also always find people who abuse the system or use it to their own advantage. However, in this instance, there appears to be much more than ‘government monopoly’ involved in the horror that befell this child. What about neighbors, friends, teachers, relatives, etc? While a sporadic phone call is made here and there, no one follows up or ‘wants to get involved’. If those who were actually concerned about this child had made a concerted effort with social services, perhaps social services would have paid more attention. Yes, social services and the police are somewhat to blame here….but so is the grandmother, next door neighbors, friends, relatives, years of teachers, etc., etc.

  3. junican Says:

    Hi JB. Soon be germinating time!

    Did you read the full report? The grandmother made lots of attempts to help. She even offered to take care of the lad, but Ms L refused. She phone many times and, as I said, wrote a letter outlining her concerns, which letter was ignored. The NSPCC report of what the workers reported was also ignored. The school did what it could via the school nurse, but Ms L always had a plausible explanation for the bruises and wounds. My point regarding those ‘third parties’ (teachers and police) is that it is totally wrong to expect them to be an extension of the social services, and thus to provide the scapegoats for SS inaction. Teachers are employed to teach and policemen are employed to keep the peace.
    We are seeing more and more of this shifting of responsibility from the lawmakers to ordinary people, who are more and more being required to act as unpaid policemen, spies, enforcers.
    It is not on.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: