Blogs

The tragedy of trusting Stuart Hazell with Tia Sharp

14 May 2013

10:57 AM

14 May 2013

10:57 AM

The Tia Sharp case is yet another harrowing untermensch saga. The man accused of the little girl’s murder, Stuart Hazell, has now changed his plea to guilty. Of course, it is impossible not to feel anguish for Tia’s parents. Just as it is impossible to comprehend their agony. Whatever the ins and outs, and whatever point I make below. Tia’s dad has expressed a wish that Hazell should serve a long time in prison and then be hanged. Fair enough, I suppose. I would probably think the same if it was my kid. Tia’s mum, Natalie, meanwhile has castigated Hazell: ‘I gave the ultimate trust to Stuart.’  By which she means allowing him to look after her daughter.

Stuart Hazell has 30 previous convictions. These include, but are not confined to, attacking someone with a machete, making a racially aggravated assault, selling cocaine, burglary and theft. These convictions were presumably known to Ms Sharp, as she had been in a “relationship” with Hazell for a week or two until he upped sticks to shag her mum. That was the man to whom she entrusted her daughter.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Dogsnob

    All so very sadly true. Is there any way back from our situation?

  • DeathRowMarv

    There is no excuse for what he did, but perhaps some understanding ? He has had a pretty awful life – child of a prostitute who didn’t know who his father was, brought up in care. Inevitably no education, dead end jobs and a petty criminal. And recently we had “shameless Mick” who torched his own family.
    There is an underworld out there which can only be glimpsed at through these cases – have some pity for the kids trapped in this who will become the Hazells of the future.

  • Jambo25

    In trying to work out where the Sharps/Hazells of this world came from one thing is often overlooked and that is the way we divided much of the old working class into ‘sheep and goats’ during the 50s, 60s and 70s with the great slum clearance/council house building splurges of those years.

    in the Autumn of 1962 my family was due for rehousing from the slum area of Edinburgh we lived in. A couple of council officials visited our street and inspected every flat in the street for cleanliness and general upkeep. Neighbours were asked what we were like and even local shopkeepers approached to see if we lived on ‘tick’. My mum and da’s rent book was inspected. This was done to every family in the street.

    If you passed you were offered houses in desirable council schemes such as Clermiston or Oxgangs. If you didn’t you got Pilton or Craigmillar/Niddrie. Guess what? You ended up with a high proportion of inadequate, undesirable and downright criminally inclined people living in those areas and the other, ‘respectable’ working class people who had previously kept them in line were elsewhere.

    In addition, the new educational and vocational opportunities allowed a lot of the children of the more aspirational, hard-working and intelligent working class to escape their old background entirely and move up the social scale into the middle-classes, leaving even more of the less fortunate or less able behind. So many of the natural leaders of the old working class communities vanished as well.

    We can look at many undesirable housing schemes, now, and see the results. Large numbers of leaderless, rudderless, jobless people with low educational and cultural standards ‘warehoused’ on the outskirts of our cities. A perfect breeding ground for the Sharps/Hazells of this world.

  • http://twitter.com/NiceTeaParty NiceTeaParty

    But let’s blame the Social Worker instead !

  • Statman

    The problems of our gross-out underclass are mainly related to genetics and a lack of imposed discipline.The latter prevents those elements of that group who have promiss and want to succeed in life from having a chance.
    The problem is entirely a product of the left which has destroyed the no brainier concept of earning rights and accepting responsibilities. There actually is such a thing as society and we should kick the arses of any who choose to undermine it or exploit it. That is the first step in regaining control of the spiralling underclass horror that that the metropolitan Marxists have created.

  • sarah_13

    Quite. The whole thing is too tragic for words and to then see these people paraded on breakfast tv! Tia’s mother has a history of drug use, Tia living with the grandmother because of this…..the whole thing is ridiculous. there people don’t appear to understand the meaning of responsibility, they are going through the motions it seems to me. Shameful the whole thing.

    • Gaudi

      I wasn’t aware they were on Breakfast tv. This is so inappropriate especially if questions aren’t asked about why a child was left in the ‘care’ of a man convicted of violent crime or questions asked about drug use etc and how children suffer as a result. It sickens me that so many tragedies are just seen as more tv fodder for us all to gawp, tut or laugh at.

      • terregles2

        Their appearances on tv are truly dreadful. They are presented as victims when the only victim was Tia. They should be told that responsible people do not let thugs into their homes and leave vulnerable children in their care.
        How will these people ever learn anything if the media keeps helping them believe that what happened in their home could happen to anybody.

  • Eyesee

    Social Services and their use of their power are to blame in very direct ways. This does not alter the fact that the whole ‘family’ around Tia also share that blame. But social services march straight in when they are either not needed and/or the family are nice, law abiding people. They shy away from the nasty, violent and confrontational scum who have charge of the Tia’s of this world. Social services who sneer at ‘brutal’ police who try to hold thugs to account rather than ‘understand’ them and who also squeal like stuck pigs for the police when those same thugs turn on them. Once again, remove ideology led thinking and much improvement will follow. But the Left will howl if you try it; the undermining and destruction of Western, capitalist, democratic society is their goal and this, one of the methods.

  • William Reid Boyd

    Yes, but the fact of the matter is that he had not displayed any paedophile tendencies before. The police are suggesting that he had developed paedophile tendencies as a result of viewing paedophile material on the internet. I get the impression that not all the material he was viewing was illegal. There are many websites out there featuring images of scantily dressed young girls posing provocatively that are not illegal (because they are arguably not “indecent”), and it is a question whether these should be allowed to continue. I believe the situation is that our present law (deriving from the 1978 Protection of Children’s Act which was direct response to the open sale in Soho and elsewhere of magazines reproducing images of naked children accompanied by suggestive text) leaves the term “indecent” as an undefined term. I suggest the proviso “or designed to provoke an erotic response”, or similar terms, should be added.

    • Noa

      So you consider that the solution to the Hazell untermenschen is a re-defintion of ‘indecent’ and an increase in internet censorship?

    • Jambo25

      Hazell had, however 30 criminal convictions involving drug use and supply and violence, amongst other things.

      • William Reid Boyd

        Yes, and I don’t doubt that Tia might well have been at risk in other ways as a result, of beconing a drug addict herself for example. But she was not as risk of beconing the focus of paedophile attentions, unless Hazell himself had acquired these inclinations. Once he had acquired them, then she was at very grave risk indeed because Hazell is plainly a psychopath.

        So it seems to me sensible to enquire how Hazell did develope these inclinations. The police have suggested that it was because he viewing paedophile material on the internet, not all of which by any means is illegal under our present law, and possibly coming into contact with like-minded individuals as a result.

        • Jambo25

          It may be worth looking into how Hazell acquired paedophile tendencies but 2 things occur to me. One is that he may have had them for a long time and simply had never been reported to the authorities. The second and more important point, however, is that there may be worse things than paedophilia which should disqualify you from having care of children.

          Hazell appears to have been a very violent thief, burglar, drug dealer and god knows what. He was almost certainly a drug user as well as dealer. Tia Sharp’s parents appear to have been mixed up in drug use and various other forms of criminality. Why was Tia not removed from this millieu? Why was there not much greater supervision of the girl and her kin group? If it was simply money then we have, as a society, to bite the bullet and provide more or simply accept the inevitability of more Tia Sharps.

  • splotchy

    If Tia’s immediate family were shacked up with someone with a dodgy criminal past, provided he had no history of ‘harming’ children, no major concern would have been expressed.
    This is because a/ society no longer considers it to be all that harmful for a child to be reared by adults who habitually commit crime (after all, we should not be ‘judgemental’ about the frailties of others) and b/ if it did, hundreds of thousands of children would have to be removed and placed in care.

  • Austin Barry

    The more one lives, the more the proactive pursuit of eugenics seems attractive.

    • Baron

      Eye catching and witty, Austin, but wrong.

      Nature has it in its power to produce a prodigy in any conditions. To limit the underbelly’s reproduction would cut us of from what must be a large if not the largest pool of gene mixing. We don’t benefit from it because since the introduction of the comprehensive idiocy we’ve lost the mechanism for spotting the endowments of nature and giving them a chance to flower. The life story of a chap called Joseph Paxton comes to mind, but then he lived in the times of the barbaric Victorians, not the enlightened present.

  • terregles2

    It seems that we are to be subjected to a television programme where poor Tia’s family will be given air time to tell the nation how they now feel after the appalling tragedy that was Tia’s short life. Most of us who had lost a child in those circumstances would be speechless with grief. The last thing we would want to do is parade ourselves in front of the media.
    The media seems to now be turning into a large Jeremy Kyle circus. Oh let’s all sit round the television and listen to the Sharp family and what they are thinking.
    Oh let’s not bother. Perhaps instead this family might listen to others talking about what we the public are thinking and how to care and protect our children from abuse.
    They could hear how it is more important to protect our children than it is to have a new boyfriend invited into our homes. I have every sympathy with how they must be feeling but I don’t think viewing their grief on TV will help Tia or any other vulnerable children.

    • Redneck

      Terregles2

      Well said: beyond my ken that this sort of tragedy should become a voyeuristic television show.

      • anyfool

        As the media and politicians become more debased this kind of thing will continue down its inevitable path.
        The next show Pakistani Paedophiles contest a race to the nearest children`s home, all get prizes.

      • Jambo25

        As the American humourist, PJ O’Rourke, once said. “Multi-channel television is there to prove that even very stupid people have rights.”

    • Fergus Pickering

      You don’t have to view their grief. I shan’t.

      • Baron

        Well said, Fergus, neither will Baron.

        • Jambo25

          Nor I. Much of television has turned into a freak show: from the seriously nasty, like this, to the exploitation of the merely delusional on our various ‘talent shows’.

      • terregles2

        It goes without saying I will not view the programme either. The point I was making was I don’t agree with these people being given any media time at all. It encourages all the other dysfunctional anti social
        Philpots and Hazells of this world to believe that they are important and their opinions and feelings are of interest and value to the rest of us.
        Personally I would prefer if they were told that their behaviour is unacceptable to decent people and they should hang their heads in shame rather than parade themselves in front of the media.

  • Gabriella

    Grandmother in evidence last week said she loved him and trusted him. He has lived with her since 2007. He was found guilty of machete attack in the last couple of years. The family knew he was a violent thug with drink and drug issues. Granny chose her happiness over her responsibility for her grandchild. She brought up the dysfunctional drug addicted daughter too, but Social Services thought she was a suitable person for the grandchild to live with.

    • Davidh

      Again, social services can’t dictate a great family for every kid, unless you are going to vastly increase the resources and powers they have available. Anybody want a police state run by social workers?

      • Jambo25

        Decent people having to live in the near vicinity of Hazell and the creatures who associated with him might well have found a police state run by social workers preferable to the anarchy they probably had to put up with.

  • JustAnOtherRandomGit

    It is a good question, though. Why is abortion allowed but hanging Stuart Hazell not?

    • MaxSceptic

      Ideally social services should encourage abortions. An offer of £500 plus some booze and a free take-away meal should entice most prospective recipients of this much needed public service.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

      Not all opponents of capital punishment support abortion, although I’ll admit that most probably do (in which case you’re right about their hypocrisy). I oppose abortion on demand AND capital punishment. Someone far more distinguished than I, though, has written on the subject, Nat Hentoff in the superb essay “The Indivisible Fight For Life” (which also rightly condemns euthanasia).

      Incidentally, we mustn’t allow underclass scum such as Stuart Hazell to set the tone of our criminal justice system. We would be far better occupied in doing everything we can to remove (or at least minimise) the social and cultural conditions in which such people’s “character” and behaviour are formed.

      • JustAnOtherRandomGit

        Thanks, will look up.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        ‘ We would be far better occupied in doing everything we can to remove (or at least minimise) the social and cultural conditions in which such people’s “character” and behaviour are formed.’

        As Lenin might have said.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

          Why might Lenin have said what, Hexhamgeezer?

        • Noa

          Elizabeth Fry, John Gaskell, Charles Dickens, Marx and any number of the lordly ‘great and good’ have been ‘quantitatively easing’ their own social conscience and responsibilities at the expense of the victims of crime and the taxpayer for over a century. And their successors continue to do so, untouched themselves by the conditions they have created for others, in quittance of their own social conscience.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

            There’s no need to write sub-Ruskinesque prose (“quittance”, indeed!) about 19th century reformers and radicals. The social and cultural conditions to which I refer are very much of our own time: family breakdown (as a result of a sexual revolution instituted by those with the material and intellectual resources to obviate its worst consequences for themselves), mass unemployment (because of – as I have remarked elsewhere – a combination of deindustrialisation and mass immigration (not to mention, since I earlier omitted to, the immense influx of women into the workforce) after WW2), the democratisation of recreational drug abuse (another vice once generally restricted to the middle-classes and bohemians) combined with an epidemic of public and private drunkenness (with its associated impulsiveness and violence), and a nihilistic popular culture which reinforces (indeed, applauds and sometimes actually rewards) such anti-social and self-destructive behaviour.

            • Noa

              I’ll write what I chose, in whatever manner I wish, master pomposo!
              Who are you to lecture others on what you may find relevant or not?
              As it happens I would agree with most of the influences you identify, whist pointing out their long and often unchallenged historic origins.
              Of course, like most windbags, you are competent enough in identifying causes, less so in prescribing competent, workable and cost effective solutions.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

                Oh, you’re one of those hyper-sensitive people that demand to be “addressed” first! I’m so terribly sorry.

                I’ll scuttle back into my crevice and learn to be more deferential to my lords and masters (and even meditate upon the virtues of “cost effectiveness”).

                • Noa

                  You lecture others on manners and etiquette in bombastic style but don’t like it happening to you.
                  And again we agree! Self-meditatiion would be good for you.

            • Teacher

              You might not have realised this but your own style is peppered with the language of the left, even if, otherwise, it is largely grammatical.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

          You’ll have to do better than that, Hexhamgeezer. Just putting someone’s words between quotation marks and then attributing them to a generally unpopular and discredited historical personage isn’t really going to impress anyone worth impressing.

          • Hexhamgeezer

            I do apologise. I will try harder next time.

        • Jambo25

          We’ve always had very bad social conditions for at least some of the population to live in. We haven’t had this kind of bestiality for quite some time though. What we don’t have now are the various formal and informal controls on people like Hazell and the Sharps that we used to.

      • Baron

        Neil Saunders, capital punishment on the statute books saves lives.

        If you and the one more distinguished you so admire don’t give quarter F about life, it’s OK to oppose it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

          I suggest you read Jeffrey Fagan on the alleged uniquely deterrent effect of capital punishment before you mouth off on a public forum in so offensive a manner.

          • Noa

            Why?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

              I didn’t say that Jeffrey Fagan was a “seminal influence” on me, simply that he was someone who challenged “Baron” ‘s opinions.

              • Noa

                If he didn’t influence you why do you refer to him?

          • Baron

            Baron did, has answered you, the posting got censored, sorry.

            And you better get used to an offensive postings by the barbarian from the East, he is but a poorly educated Slav, what would you expect from him.

            • Baron

              Neil Saunders, a part of the censored amswer to you is here, it may, may not pass the guard dogs in a rag that allegedly backs free speech:

              Look, the sentencing guidelines here call for anyone harming a homosexual, found guilty to be given a longer sentence than someone harming Baron. The idea being the harsher the sentence the greater the deterrent to others as the notes explain.

              If you know of a harsher deterrent than a loss of one’s life, let Baron know. Or rather, if you had to choose between getting hanged tomorrow or spending the rest of your natural life in today’s British prison, which option would you go for?

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

                There I would agree with you, Baron.

                I think that homosexuals have no greater (or lesser) right to protection under the law than anybody else.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

                The answer to the question in your final paragraph is to be understood under within the limits of “bounded rationality” (i.e. the short-term response of a person with a very limited amount of knowledge): I’d have to find out whether imprisonment in England was a doddle or a penance. For some people it would be the former, for the remainder, the latter…

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

              I’d expect you to learn English and good manners.

      • Baron

        Neil Saunders proposes to shift the limitations of the human condition some more turning us all into saints: ‘we would be far better occupied doing everything we can to remove (or at least minimise) the social and cultural conditions in which such people’s ‘character’ and behavior are formed’.

        So what have we been doing doing since the war? Making the social and cultural conditions worse, forcing the Hazells to go hungry, be homeless, depriving them of their human rights….? Of course, not. Just the opposite. So what do the Hazells living in the ever improving social and cultural conditions, conditions our predecessors couldn’t even dream of, do? Just have a look at Baron’s answer to James above on muggings.

        Did it ever cross your deluded, pseudo-liberal mind that if social and cultural conditions were the major determinant of criminal behavior the sub-Saharan Africa would be nothing but a country-wide prison?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

          You’re so busy fulminating against what you think I think that you haven’t paid any proper attention to what I actually said, or, indeed, didn’t say.

          Yes, in some absolutely vital respects our society has deteriorated since the Second World War. Family life has been undermined, educational standards have dropped precipitously, mass entertainments have become coarser, stupider and more brutal, and a combination of deindustrialisation and mass immigration has created a vast underclass of more or less unsocialised and unemployable people.

          Therefore what you say about “ever-improving social conditions” with regard to people like Stuart Hazell is a complete red herring, just like your combination of a straw man argument with an ad hominem in your opening sentence. (Neither I, nor any other sane person, imagines for one moment that we can be individually – still less collectively – turned into saints, and I have never expressed such an opinion.)

          You’ll have to clarify the connection between criminal behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa and the present debate, since I am struggling to perceive one for reasons that I believe to be quite unrelated to delusions or “pseudo-liberal” beliefs.

          • Baron

            Neil, sir, if you are struggling to figure Baron’s point about the sub-Saharan Africa’s living conditions and its crime rate and its relevance to the debate here there ain’t any reason we should continue this argument. Have a good night sleep, my blogging friend, and keep on believing that ‘the improvement of social and cultural conditions’ will erase crime. It’s a free country, still, you are entitled to believe anything you want.

            By the way, you haven’t told Baron which of the options you’d go for. Why?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

              Which options, Baron?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

          Incidentally, do you think it quite normal to refer to yourself in the third person?

          • Baron

            Yes, Neil, it’s normal, didn’t you know Baron’s of an aristocratic stock, blue blood, long heritage, mouth watering privileges…

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

              I knew that. But I know nothing of you.

    • Fergus Pickering

      The two things are in no way connected unless you can make the connection, O Randomgit.

      • JustAnOtherRandomGit

        Causing death legally.

  • jpt4w

    The breakdown of the family is the main problem in these sorts of cases. If there weren’t so many ‘stepdads’ and ‘boyfriends’ most of these would not happen.
    Fathers tend NOT to do this sort of thing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=620222966 Neil Saunders

      I can add nothing to this. You’re right.

    • Noa

      Does the vacuum of any moral standard of behaviour not play as equally important a role?
      The loss of a Judeo-Christian standard has not been replaced by any secular equivalent by the state.

  • MikeF

    To be fair to the mother criminal convictions do not necessarily imply a predeliction for paedophilia. Indeed ‘nonces’ often get a very rough time from conventional criminals in jail. But if the fact that he started a relationship with her own mother did not alert her to the possibility that his interests might swing to the other end of age-scale as well then all you can say is that the most appalling price has been paid for her naivety. There is no moral here except that in a world of habitual amorality no-one is safe from violence, abuse and exploitation.

    • Austin Barry

      Let’s see: grandmother to mother to ? The immutable algebra of decadence.

    • Jambo25

      Being a violent junkie should start alarm bells ringing and disqualify you as a perfect candidate for childcare duties.

  • terregles2

    If anyone could have any dealings with Hazell and judge him to be trusted with the care of any child I would hate to see what the same people would judge to be an untrustworthy person.
    Heartbreaking beyond words.

  • Gaudi

    Tragic case, on the back of far too many others. I remember at the time being angry that more attention wasn’t being paid by the media to her disappearance. But then were all so wrapped up in the Olympics when the search was ongoing and her body finally discovered. Her death seemed all the more raw for me as it brought me down from the Olympic high which many in my part of East London were feeling. Lest this descends into another group bashing of the ‘untermensch’ or working class as we used to be called, many on that estate went out searching for Tia Sharp and are as indignant and angry about this tragedy as any of the chattering classes who care enough to comment.

    • James R

      I’m working class. Where I grew up, that family, all of them , would have been persuaded to move out of the area and invited not to return. Pound to a penny there are more families on your estate , and others, that need removing from civilized society. Because as sure as night follows day this is going to happen again. Why don’t you , respectable, ‘indignant’ and ‘angry’ working class do something about it,legally of course. Anyone with the IQ of an oyster could have told you that extended family were very bad news indeed. You should have been angry and indignant a whole lot sooner. Too late now.
      You don’t think we need more social workers do you ?

      • Daniel Maris

        Have you ever been to New Addington? 🙂

        • Hexhamgeezer

          I have. We were run out of town for winning money on a quiz machine. Never went back after trading punches getting to our car!

        • Jambo25

          I was brought up in a delightful area at the top of the Dumbiedykes, in Edinburgh, known as the “Penny Tenements’. It was known as this as the area was such a slum that the landlords who owned the tenements tried to sell them for a peppercorn price of 1d to the sitting tenants, to get them off their hands.

          There were some seriously dodgy people who lived near to us but they never descended to the levels of the Sharp/Hazell clan. Nor did they end up, as Hazell did, out of control and frightening people. There was little police presence and no social workers, in that part of Edinburgh, during the 50s and early 60s. What there were, however, were lots of men like my dad.

          Families were still, overwhelmingly, ‘properly’ married with husbands and wives. The husbands were tough, working class blokes with senses of decency and responsibility. Many were ex-servicemen from WW2 , who had had enough excitement for one life, thank you very much. My dad was a good example. A manual worker who’d seen combat service in both the Army and RN during the late unpleasantness from 39-45. He came out the Navy in 45 as a CPO.

          Someone like Hazell would have been told to behave or simply run out of the district by my dad or someone similar. Neighbours would have kept an eye on the Sharp/Hazell clan and pressure of a very un-social workery type would have been exerted on them to get them to behave. This kind of area in which I was brought up was, thus, fairly self-regulating. The cops and the social workers kept their nebs out and the place worked reasonably well under difficult circumstances.

          Life wasn’t great but it was probably better than a lot of the ropier housing schemes now. Whatever happened to all those unfashionably macho working class blokes? Where are they when you need them?

          • James R

            ‘Whatever happened to all those unfashionably macho working class blokes?’
            Working in call centres , talking bollocks to customers , in a desperate attempt to pay the mortgage on the bolsawood rabbit hutch they bought for £199,000.
            Very well put Jambo. Similar backgrounds I see.

            • Jambo25

              One of the things that sticks in my mind from my childhood is what happened with Paddy on the landing below us. Paddy was a decent guy but had a drink problem. One day he went spare and attacked his common law wife and hurt her fairly badly. He was on a drunk at the time and went after her, finally, with his old army bayonet. My old man was sent into action by my ma and eventually disarmed Paddy. Paddy did fairly minor time for assault but didn’t end up facing a manslaughter or murder charge.

              When he got out my ma ended up as a witness at his wedding to the common law wife he had assaulted. Paddy got off the booze and, as far as I know, they had a decent life together.

              My ma did all the correspondence and writing for our elderly neighbour, Ms. Brown, who’d never properly learned how to deal with bureaucracy. My ma and da weren’t saints. There were plenty others like them and those people were the social cement of the areas they lived in. From what you write I’m sure you recognise the situation and I’m sure you could produce similar stories from your childhood. Our parents did for free what an expensive and largely ineffective state organisation now does.

  • http://twitter.com/judyk113 judyk113

    I understand both Tia’s parents who were separated have a history of drug addiction including repeated referrals to social services including one related to violence between her mother and her stepfather and police involvement re crack cocaine use. This is why she came to be living with her grandmother. The issue is therefore why social services allowed her to remain under their care and in close proximity to a man with such a conviction list. He was of course an habitual liar, who managed to fool the police until the Daily Telegraph fed them the information that he was telling different people different stories. I presume there will now be a serious case review. Will it again come to the conclusion, as initially with Baby P under the Haringey Social Services during the overlordship of Sharon Shoesmith, that nothing could have been done to prevent this tragedy, since social services had ticked all the required boxes?

    • Dicky14

      Lessons will be learned, multi agency responses tightened, increased training given, lines of accountability established. There you go, saved the Local Authority the bother of getting PwC involved so that nobody’s sacked and saved £100k in the process. All cheques made payable to ‘IluvMyKidsToBitsIDo’.

    • Davidh

      Easy to say.

      But really, if kids were taken away from any
      domestic situation where there were separated parents, drug use, one
      report of domestic violence and multiple criminal convictions then we’d
      have thousands or tens of thousands more kids in care. You’d be
      complaining about kids taken away unnecessarily, interfering social
      workers and institutionalizing youngsters just because they come from
      the wrong side of the tracks. There’s a limit to what authorities can do
      and, as far as I see, none of Hazell’s previous convictions related to
      pedophilia and there were no previous reports of violence against Tia.

      Tragic? – yes. Blame social services? – so far, no.

      • http://twitter.com/judyk113 judyk113

        I doubt if “tens of thousands” of children are in the situation of drug addict (not “users) parents, one parent involved in domestic violence attacks by her partner, and a grandmother, with whom the child is living, in a relationship with a man with over 30 convictions including both hard drug dealing and serious violence including a machete attack. In my view, evidence of paedophilia and severe physical neglect cannot be the only reason why children are removed from parents.

        It looks to me as if Tia was at high risk from the combination of both her mother’s and her grandmother’s domestic circumstances.

        Leaving her mother to live with her grandmother should have triggered a full social services review of the grandmother’s home, including her partner’s suitability to be a step parent for an extremely vulnerable girl. The guidelines for social services should be reviewed in the light of the number of cases where the most significant factor has been the eventual murderer/abuser of a child has had a long history of physical violence and hard drug use. There maybe needs to be an objective “points” scoring system used by social workers to help assess risks.

        • Davidh

          You are pointing in the wrong direction.

          The answer is for people to take more responsibility for their own children and families, not to take what little responsibility people have left and give it to social services.

          And yes, if you expand the social services responsibilities to include “a full social services review” (whatever that might involve or cost) of all cases where kids go to live with grandparents and if you take kids away without evidence of physical neglect then you will have thousands or tens of thousands more kids to deal with in the care system. And the care system is also not the safest place to grow up as the recent grooming scandals have shown.

          You are spouting opinions based a particular case with the benefit of hindsight and with no thought to the practical implications of what you suggest.

  • Marcus

    I would have thought he would not tell a perspective and short term girlfriend of all his previous convictions, especially the violent ones.

    Otherwise I agree, should the mother perhaps not have used better judgement?
    There is just no personal responsibility in her statement, although obviously all the blame ultimately falls at the feet of that piece of detritus.

    • Peter Jackson

      “I would have thought he would not tell a perspective and short term
      girlfriend of all his previous convictions, especially the violent ones.”

      Take another look at his photo

      • terregles2

        Any woman who could think he was a suitable childminder really is not equiped to care for children and keep them safe.

  • Eyesee

    Good point well made Mr. Liddle. And of course, by pleading guilty Hazell automatically qualifies to have his ‘sentence’ halved. Thus proving that government are no better at protecting us and for similar reasons, than Ms. Sharp.

    • James Corbett

      His sentence is not reduced. Life imprisonment means life. The prisoner may be released on parole but is liable to recall for almost any misconduct (and many lifers routinely are). He may be eligible for parole when he has served the minimum recommended sentence, but I wouldn’t hold your breath while waiting for him to be released. It is a complete myth that a convicted murderer has his sentence cut in half for pleading guilty.

      • Eyesee

        Parliament.uk has the same myth. Pleading guilty it says, usually attracts a reduction of one third if made as soon as reasonably possible. In 2010 the government proposed that this should be increased to half, but this was withdrawn six months later. One quarter if a trial date has been set and one tenth after the trial has begun. However these are guidelines, it is at the discretion of the judge. In Hazell’s case I gather ‘no parole’ was stipulated.

      • Baron

        How imbecilic could one get without getting institutionally committed in this country? James Corbett speaks: ‘Life imprisonment means life. The prisoner may be released on parole, but is liable to recall…..”

        Where, TF, is the ‘life means life’ in the ‘release on parole’, then? Since we god rid of hanging, over 150 murderers who got released ‘on parole’ having served their ‘life means life’ sentences have murdered again. And these are only the ones who got caught.

        You, sir, go explain to the relatives your take on ‘life means life’. It will be of great comfort to them.

        • James Corbett

          As it happens, I agree that he should never be let out. The existence of parole does not change the meaning of a life sentence. Release is not permanent and a lifer’s life is never his own again. Quite rightly. This man stands no chance of being paroled. Your spittle-flecked taunts and supposed concern for Tia’s relatives don’t merit response beyond that.

          • Eyesee

            Ooh let’s not start the all-to-easy internet abuse. Your original reply was a little confused, but then mine said 50% reduction and that wasn’t right either. A little give and take. Plus, if over such a minor difference of opinion the word imbecile pops up, it is probably safe to ignore it, even if much else stated was OK. I certainly didn’t object to being questioned and even though I try to be careful, as I said my facts weren’t facts. We are in danger of ‘debating’ with the same intelligence and desire for curing problems as politicians.

            • James Corbett

              Fair points. The debate can do without the name calling. Baron – if you read this, I apologise for the last sentence of my posting.

              • Baron

                James, sir, no need to apologize, getting offended ain’t yet a crime unless you (or Baron) were a member of one of the protected species. He takes it you aren’t, he isn’t either. And it would take alot more for the one with the blue blood to get offended anyway.

                What pushed the barbarian from the East to step over the boundaries of civility was your take on things criminal. How could someone with your brain power get brainwashed so easily, discard common sense, endorse the pseudo-liberal restorative justice system and believe it, the restorative idiocy, can truly reduce crime.

                Look, in the barbaric Britain, in 1952, there were 400 muggings in England and Wales. In 2002, in enlightened Britain of the restorative justice, PC and stuff, there were 400 muggings in just one London borough. In one month.

                What do you think of it?

                • James Corbett

                  Thanks Baron. I can’t see why you think I am brainwashed or liberal (pseudo or otherwise). I haven’t said anything about him being rehabilitated. I don’t believe he will be. I don’t want him ever to be released and I don’t expect that it will happen. I don’t think those are the hallmarks of the idiocy you speak about. What I did say was that it is simply wrong that there was any automatic discount on a life sentence (never mind the proportion) for pleading guilty. To say that there is perpetuates a myth. You and I may disagree about whether any lifer should ever be eligible for parole. I think some should be – not including him. But to be eligible is not the same thing as saying that someone will be paroled. Nor does it change the fact that lifers can be recalled (and often are) for behaviour well short of crimes – as indeed they should be.

                  As to your muggings figures, anyone would be shocked. But I don’t think they have anything to do with the point I made.

                • Baron

                  But they (the mugging figures) do, my blogging friend, if a vile murder attracts ‘life’ of 25 years a mere mugging doesn’t justify more than a slip on the wrist.

                  Tell you what raises Baron’s blood, the pseudo-liberal fruitcakes seem to think that a society can eliminate or even reduce crime if instead of punishing the offender so that he truly pains it spreads punishment amongst the law abiding, each getting hit abit. Example: instead of jailing a habitual mugger the system allows tens of victims to suffer his vile behaviour. This chap Hazell had 30 convictions and was still free to rape a minor, kill her. It sickens Baron.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here