I agree with Neil Murphy, who points out the dangers of "early intervention". Perhaps those in favour of more powers to social workers should read Camilla Cavendish's columns about the incompetence and lack of accountabiliy of the system, which works in secret.

Roger Bingham, Cambridge, UK

I want to know why the Government, having been notified by an employee via a solicitor of concerns in this case and given the previous horror in Haringey, did not instigate immediate, hands on investigation?
They are too quick to leave things to those whose previous judgement remains in question.

A.M. Williams, Stafford,

Thank you for putting into words exactly what I have been thinking. As far as I can see, if Baby P had lived, those who should have protected him would still have failed him. The real tragedy is that although this boy died, thousands live to repeat the cycle of abuse. How can it be stopped?

Gayl Hannon, falkirk,

'Scuse me but this poor baby died over a year ago. What have Haringey been doing in that time? Surely there should have been some sort of investigation and a report? Surely Haringey ought to have the answers by now to all the questions we are asking? Why has the uproar taken them by surprise?

Jan, Clitheroe, England

Another proposal to Nationalise this time babies! The problem will be solved fast by the simple expedient of holding the most Senior Official in childcare responsible for the failure. They persistently fail to adequately train and supervise staff and escape real censure like dismissal.

raj, harrow, uk

All the early intervention in the world will not help any child whose social worker does not have the common sense, and instinct, to know that a toddler is in desperate need of help.
Or a Paediatrician who does not spot 8 broken ribs and probably a broken spine.

LB, Birmingham,

And what 'difficult decisions' did Haringey have to make?
Have you seen the photograph of the baby shortly before he was killed? Have you seen the long catalogue of 'unexplained' injuries that he suffered in those short months? Please! Do not try to defend the indefensible!

LB, Birmingham,

Haringeys Child 'protection' programme costs us 100million per YEAR! Thats ONE social services department.

I think that is 'costly' enough!

It seems the more money we throw at them the worse they get!
Money is not the problem here..NuLab lefty social engineering management is the problem.

LB, Birmingham,

Lord laming recommended CP investigations to be led by Police....the Climbie enquiry has only been used to introduce interagency gossip/ collusion [which existed beforehand] and the Children's database. PLEASE do not use baby P to go for more State abuse i n public/private law. wake up public.

Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK

The evidence was clear, the professionals made the right interpretations of the facts, then chose the wrong course of action. One more rule, yet another law, a further legion of bureaucrats won't make any difference. What needs to change is Men's hearts, until then this tragedy will repeat itself.

peter, miami, usa

Better still, prevent dysfunctional families from perpetuating themselves: withdraw state benefits, for instance.

ian cheese, london, uk

Abuse will not go away however much we might wish it to do so. We cannot legislate it away either. What we can do is to free key people from the fear of being seen to "break with procedure" and encourage objective judgement.

Tim, Kingston,

This kind of abuse has nothing to do with chaotic parenting, this was sustained abuse by 3 adults ,no parenting course can treat sadists. If we expect Bankers etc to resign when there is a failure in a business then the least we can expect is management resignations here that why they get paid.

majel, Limerick, Ireland

I share your prejudice David and agree that there is a case for social intervention. There is also a case for sterilisation and the Dutch are considering this at the moment. Call it eugenics if you wish but the Baby P case has clearly demonstrated that we now need to think the unthinkable.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

nothing wrong with giving pre-natal support. however, we need doctors who can spot a broken back and ribs (or other signs of systematic abuse). and the death penalty for bullies as a very public warning of what happens if youc can't control yourself. from tortuting frogs to a child is a small step.

jem, london, uk

Saying that a group of children is "more likely" than others to exhibit problems in later life does not mean that they are "likely" to do so, or that most of the problems will come from that group. Early intervention can only help to stop some issues growing.

Professor Paul Spicker, Aberdeen, Scotland

Let us take a child and teach it not to honour its parents.Then deny it the truth as to the root of its existence.Lay down the foundation of cynisism with father christmas.Then corrupt and overwelm thier minds with sexual knowledge,Then teach no absolutes save social ones. Then stand back.

G Blezard, London, uk

Saying that some children are "more likely" than others to present problems is not the same as saying that they are "likely" to do so, or that most problems are due to such people. Early intervention can help people with early problems; it does not cure the problems that come later.

Professor Paul Spicker, Aberdeen, Scotland

"Shoesmith ... callously enjoying the fleshpots while children died around her"

Sounds like a fair description to me. This incompetent woman is paid over £2000 a WEEK .

Fortunately the names and photographs of the killers are widely available on the net.

Justice will be done, I hope.

Anthony Price, Truro, Cornwall, UK

Saying that some children are "more likely" than others to present problems is not the same as saying that they are "likely" to do so, or that most problems are due to such people. Early intervention can help people with early problems; it does not cure the problems that come later.

Professor Paul Spicker, Aberdeen, Scotland

Rather than "reward" unmarried young mothers with a home of their own, why not create hostels?, this could discourage many from unwanted pregnancy and if properly supervised would ensure the well being of the babies.

In a well run hostel mum's could be shown how to care with compassion and love.

suzanne, costa blanca, spain

The real reason people are 'gobs on legs' has nothing to do with prejudice or a need for someone to blame. It's simply this; the abuse and neglect in this case was so blatant and so obvious and yet STILL nothing was done. That's jaw-dropping.

kate, Birmingham,

Early intervention may be well be a good idea. However the issue in this case is that no one has taken responsibility for the fact that this child has died. All we hear is that they followed "correct procedures" much good that did Baby P!

Samantha, London, England

Sounds like a good idea, except that the Left will moan about civil liberties, the Right will moan about the nanny state, and the bean counters in government won't provide funding because the targets aren't measurable in the short term.

Will Duffay, London,

Neil, several US programs of early-childhood-intervention in dysfunctional families (with a high chance of kids going to gaol/ long-term unemployed) have been successful in reducing the incidence of gaol and increasing the chance of gainful employment, with benefits to the kids, families and society

Faustino, Brisbane (ex-pat), Australia

The issue with Baby P is that those responsible didn't act despite glaring overwhelming evidence of abuse over a long period of time. No system will function if those running it are incompetent and not held responsible for their incompetence.

Glen, Melbourne,

Baby P is one more sad cases of lack of comon sense. Our society has lost the comon sense. Nothing is about people anymore, just costs, reviews, plans of action, budgets, personal interest. Its easyer to take an animal from an abuser owner and put into care, but it is impossible to save a child.

Renata Hunter, London, Uk

Early intervention will create more problems from those who would not have become abusers. In effect you are using probability to pre-judge - in effect creating 'pre-crime'. I think you are wrong and those people will always be with us.

Neil Murphy, Cromer,