That was loose use of language on my part, Sharon, and thanks for pointing it out - what I meant was that the child was the first clear victim, because of the way the mother had behaved on that day. That was so clearly in my mind that it didn't occur to me that what I'd written didn't exactly say that.

And the second victim is the Traveller community, and thus potentially the child once again, and also the mother.

The central point I was making was about it being a distortion to present the community from which the child was removed as being abusive towards children. And even if the actions of the authorities did turn out in fact to have been appropriate and proportional and so forth, the impression conveyed by a lot of media coverage seems to have involved that distortion.