It’s time, once again, to vent our collective spleens.

It’s time, once again, for those on the moral high ground to stand up and be counted.

It’s time, once again, to crucify a social worker.

Haringey Council has done it again. Eight years on from the Victoria Climbie scandal, their social service department has allowed another defenceless child to be horrifically murdered. Frankly, we find the details of Baby P's case too distressing to read, and it seems nobody comes out of it well. But it beggars belief that Haringey Social Services decided to leave the child with his drug addict "slob" mother, even though he was on the "at-risk" register, and even after the police had advised he should be removed.

(Three star disgrace)

You cannot legislate to eradicate evil. There is no system on earth that will protect us against Harold Shipman, Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe and all the rest of them. You do the best you can, in difficult circumstances. Some times you get it wrong. Haringay Council got it wrong this time. God, did they get it wrong and, yes, once again we need to examine procedures and see if we can get it any better.

But, once again, the whole emphasis of the story is on social services rather than on the evil thugs that committed the offence. It was the same with Victoria Climbie:

Haringey social services were branded as incompetent by Nigel Rumfitt QC in the trial over the murder of Anna Climbie. "If you came across a child in need in Haringey, it would be better to call out the RAC than social services," he said.

A headline grabbing remark by prosecuting counsel? No. Nigel Rumfitt was defending one of the murderers and trying to shift emphasis away from his client and onto social services.

Which reminds me. What’s the difference between a Rottweiler and a social worker? The Rottweiler only takes your children away one at a time. Ha! Ha! Did that make you all laugh? That’s how we approach social workers, isn’t it?

A social conscience and a geography degree are no preparation for the realities of life. And we all know what [social workers] are like, don’t we? A load of tree-hugging, anorak wearing, yaks-milk drinking do-gooders. However did we allow them into positions of responsibility?

Recognise the picture?

We all do, don’t we? And it is that gleeful recognition that characterises the real problem.

Which is the greater of two evils? A child at risk of abuse not being removed from the family environment and being damaged; or a child not in danger being mistakenly removed from innocent parents? Society - that’s a pompous word for you and me - is hypocritical. It offers no answer to the problem and, with a sigh of relief, leaves it to the social workers. When they get it right, which is most of the time, Society’s conscience is untroubled. We do not worry about social problems provided we do not hear about them. But let there be one mistake and the social workers are pilloried.

Social workers are professional “do-gooders”. What is wrong with that? Some of them are vegetarians and I dare say that some of them have geography degrees. A few may even, Heaven forefend, read the Guardian. So what? They also happen to be a group of highly trained, intelligent, caring professionals.

One thing is certain; they are not in it for the money.

Sorting our social workers

When did you last read an article in a newspaper saying that social workers did a brilliant job, saving the lives of countless at risk children? That article does not exist. When did you last read an article in a newspaper about social workers removing an “at risk” child and then being over-ruled by a court? It happens all the time.

It is the same with the Jean Charles de Menezes tragedy. Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld would have talked cynically of “collateral” damage. In fact, his death was a tragic accident. He was an innocent victim of terrorism, an innocent bystander. Now we are going to crucify some police officers. I have not the slightest doubt that the officers opened sustained fire on this poor innocent man without giving warning of any sort. I also have not the slightest doubt that, had he been a terrorist bomber, and had the police not taken him out at the first opportunity, many innocent lives would have been lost. Thus, the police cannot win.

On the front line of the fight against fanatical terrorists there is no time to say, “Excuse me, old chap, would you mind putting your hands in the air”. It is different on the front line of the fight against child abuse. There is a little more time. The social workers do not “fire” without first asking questions.

I think of the knocks and bangs my four children have had over the years; the bruises, the grazes, the broken tooth, the cut lip, the sprained ankle, and the broken arm. Do I want a medico-legal cross-examination every time I go to the Accident and Emergency department? When my daughter tripped and broke her arm, we did not take her to hospital the same night. We waited until the next morning. Should social services have taken her into care for two or three days whilst “appropriate” enquires were made”?

Where are you going to draw the line? If you want to prevent all parental child abuse then you will have to move all our children away from their parents and into institutionalised care to be supervised by the church, the children’s homes and the boy-scout movement.

Hmmm. Suddenly, the status quo seems quite appealing.