And ok what basis would they assume a child is potentially at risk? Because someone didn’t turn up to a routine check in appointment?
If he's on a watch list then yes
Social services were already involved weren't they or they wouldn't be calling round in the first place. People take it upon themselves to smash car windows In if someone's left a dog in for 5 minutes, aye they should be knocking doors through if there's potentially a child at risk.
I can't help but wonder what the protocol is for police welfare checks
Yeah I get its a hard situation and people could say well maybe they're just out at a relatives etc but if they've tried all ways of contact and got nowhere for me they need to make sure the child is safe.
Not sure it works like that mate. Just being aware of issues doesn’t mean you immediately suspect the kid might die tomorrow
Yea because you can see into the car to see the dog at risk. How do the police know there’s a kid at risk? Just because someone doesn’t answer the door doesn’t mean there is an imminent threat to life. I’ve read nothing at all to suggest alarm bells should have been raised, especially if he had a history of poor timekeeping
Surely that's the aim of social services in conjunction with the police and other agencies where needed
But they must have suspected a risk or they wouldn't be making calls round would they surley?
Do you know how many kids are on the watch list? And how many of them are for relatively minor things? Around 100,000. Should we knock down doors every single time one of their parents isn't in when the social call?
If they think the child is at risk and they've tried all avenues of contact then yes.
There was clearly not much thought of a potential risk if social services just left it a week and knocked again
But enough to call round first time , attempt all means of contact, report to management and contact police then call round a further two occasions?
You keep saying "if they think the child is at risk" - who said they thought there was substantial risk? What evidence of any risk has been presented whatsoever?
Why else would social services be calling round multiple occasions? They reported to management who contacted police after the first visit? You wouldn't do that if there wasn't doubt in mind would you?
Because that is what their process is to manage any ongoing situations. There is a difference between having a routine visit and being thought of as "at risk" - you clearly have no idea how the process operates whatsoever do you?
And do they report to management and police after routine visits?
The police have referred themselves so I guess we'll see what the enquiry says. For me it sounds like more could have been done. I'll say nothing more as obviously an emotional case maybe that's clouding my thinking on the matter.
