What Arthur’s tragic death tells us about Britain’s child protection crisis

If you’ve tuned in to any news reports over the last week, you’re bound to have heard the harrowing story of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes’s death last year, at the hands of his father and stepmother.

Last Thursday, following an eight-week trial, Arthur’s father, Thomas Hughes, was found guilty of manslaughter and his stepmother, Emma Tustin, was convicted of his murder. Disturbing evidence of Arthur being forced to “stand like a statue” for hours, starved and dehydrated having been force-fed salt-laced meals and kept isolated in the house led to the pair additionally being convicted of child cruelty charges. So horrifying was the case, the jury asked to stand in silence before reading its verdict.

The systematic abuse endured by the six-year-old blonde boy, who loved football and Paw Patrol, understandably invokes a range of strong emotions, from heartbreak to rage, and naturally leads to questions of why this little child wasn’t better protected. But will the government’s hastily promised investigation into the circumstances of his death help protect other children – or simply allow the blame to be pushed onto protective services already underfunded to breaking point?