We've had a raft of excuses and no apology

Watching the news last night took my breath away. My wife Sam couldn't watch and left the room.

The details of the short life and terrible death of Baby P will never leave me, and I pity the jury for having to listen to them.

That three people could inflict such pain on such a small child is beyond comprehension and beyond contempt. As a father of three young children who I would do anything to protect, I am sickened to the core by these crimes.

After the shock and sadness comes anger. It is an outrage that less than 10 years after the murder of Victoria Climbié - and more than three decades since the case of Maria Colwell - another child was left to slip through the safety net to their death.

The signs were there - the bruises and injuries, the suspicions and intuitions - but Baby P was left to suffer at the hands of these sick people. How on earth was this allowed to happen?

It's not like he wasn't known to the social services. A number of social workers, health visitors, doctors, nurses and police officers observed and examined him. Each time a tragic missed opportunity. But reading the reports it seems that no one - not one of these people - is willing to hold their hand up and take responsibility.

We've had a raft of excuses and not one apology. Everyone says they followed protocol to the letter and that the fault lies with some systemic failure.

But we cannot allow the words "systemic failure" to absolve anyone of any responsibility. Systems are made up of people and the buck has got to stop somewhere.

The Laming report into Victoria Climbié's death recommended that one person should be responsible for the co-ordination of social services, health services and police, to bring these threads together to protect children. They've got to come up with some answers, fast. Why, when the police expressed strong suspicions to social services, was the child not taken into care? Why were they not more sceptical of the mother, considering her arrest for assault? How could a baby who was on the child protection register end up suffering such neglect that, according to one expert, he had endured injuries similar to the "force of a car crash"?

If they can't answer these questions satisfactorily, they shouldn't be in the job.

My view of society is that it works best when the basic principle of communal life is adhered to, and that's personal responsibility. Society cannot work properly unless individuals carry the consequences of their actions.

In the case of actions which are criminal, as they clearly were with the killers of this baby boy, the consequence must be clear: prison. But the same is true for professional negligence.

Those whose job it was to oversee this system have failed. They must admit that and pay a price.

But the biggest concern now is how we stop this from ever happening again. Part of that is about reinforcing professional responsibility, as I've argued.

But it's also about making sure these professionals talk to each other and work with each other more, and ensuring that social workers are properly resourced, trained and motivated to keep on top of their cases.

We all know that professionals talking to each other is the key to catching child abuse - the teacher who notices bruises talking to social services; the hospital doctor with suspicions telling the police.

It's through communication that suspicions are reinforced, dots are joined and action can be taken.

Since the Laming report joint-agency talking has got a lot better. The trouble is that too often professionals may be talking to each other, but they're not actually doing anything to follow that up.

There'll be lots of talk now about resources and coordination, reviews and procedures and yes, these things are important. Yes, social workers need the time and tools to stay on top of their cases. Yes, it's true that in the neediest parts of the country - places like Haringey - social workers are seriously over-stretched and under-resourced.

But let's be frank - this child was seen not once, not twice, but 60 times. The whistle should have been blown, the child should have been taken into care, the repeated cruelty should have been stopped. It's about responsibility, not just in procedure and protocol.

No amount of child protection legislation is a substitute for properly trained and supported professionals at the sharp end, social workers who can spend time with vulnerable children and not in front of computer screens collecting data and ticking boxes.

But more than that, there's no substitute for common sense and responsibility. The common sense that says this child is being abused, and the responsibility to do something about it.

It's these instincts we need to lead child protection - for the sake of all children who are at risk, and in memory of Baby P.