censorship

Based on the report findings, suggestions are easy. Despite only investigating the allegations from 10 (then I think reduced to 8) families, evidence was found to support virtually all the claims made, so there are failings. Those individual social workers who repeatedly failed should be disciplined, and sacked if necessary, those who occasionally did should receive additional training and support. There was a clear failure by management to communicate and monitor staff, and the same process should be applied to them. This needs to be treated like a failing school in the UK, so its is placed in 'special measures' and a crisis management team brought in to immediately address the many, many failings and issues raised. We know what they are now, so the solution is get rid the substandard people and implement effective management to help those who want to do a good job. But... Why is it STT's role to suggest solutions? They are a concerned citizen who believed, and it turns out was absolutely right, that there are serious problems in social services. They had an opinion and expressed it. why do they now have to solve the issue too? Isn't that why we elect politicians and have thousands of overpaid civil servants?

Looks like someone's got a crush!!! Is she a proper looker? You may well be right in your assertion, which is just one of the reasons I wouldn't pretend to know how to fix anti-social behaviour with special treats.

Perhaps Mr Thomas has succumbed to the mystery illness which appears to have resulted in several social workers taking sick leave recently. It is most unfortunate for such a bout of illness to hit the division so badly, especially with the report due to be published this week. It's a shame they won't be at work to bask in the warm glow of being fully exonerated. I wish them all a speedy recovery and hope they don't end up on sick leave for a long period, ultimately resulting in early retirement with a lump sum payment and pension entitlement.

Bet there's some do-gooder airhead with zero life experience, zero qualifications and an ego the size of a planet who's read a couple of books behind this lame idea.

You must be new here...Barrie makes things up to appear interesting. It stops being entertaining really quickly.

nothing like a bit of unnecessary aggression and name calling to get your point across. Despite your tone, you deserve a response, although Roger Mexico has sort of covered. For clarity, in case you are as simple as your post indicates, for the Attorney General's Chambers to become involved police have to commence an investigation and then take advice. My point was that, the rumour stated that because of a familial relationship police declined to take any action over an alleged offence, so it couldn't have gone to the AG's Chambers for any decision. Also, because I can't really resist it, you say one should go to the AG's Chambers for an 'independent' decision? And you call me the fucktard?

There was a rumour doing the rounds that this woman and members of her family had been verbally harassed by a person in the Island, and that the fact those allegations weren't investigated or dragged in front of a court with no evidence had nothing to do with the person being the sister of a current or former police officer. the isle of man - where you can (get away with whatever you like as long as you know the right people)

Oh right. I understand the point you were making now. Yes, I'd agree her interaction with one or two Facebook pages and on this forum didn't help enhance her reputation, or perhaps create a good first impression if you hadn't encountered her previously, but that was to a relatively limited audience really. Being taken to court ensured widespread coverage in the 'mainstream' local media, such as Isle of Man Newspapers, Manx Radio, 3FM etc etc, which can only have resulted in her reputation being damaged to a new and much wider audience. Also, her previous online interaction made her look a bit silly and gobby. The non-case the Attorney General's Chambers brought against her alleged she had broken the law, was a criminal, and had harassed someone, which is clearly much more serious than posting like a dick a few times. I'm pleased for her and her husband this ordeal is over, hope everyone who read initial media reports and jumped to 'smoke and fire' conclusions sees the outcome, and that she sues the AG's Chambers for what it has put her through. Good job everyone in the Attorney General's Chambers is whiter than white and none of them have skeletons in the closet, isn't it?

I have to confess, I'm a little confused. I think we all know this woman had a lot to say on social media and here, but I don't fully understand what that has to do with the non-existent case which has now been dropped. The case related to allegations of harassment of an individual, which it turned out the prosecution was unable to provide evidence of despite she and her husband being subject to this process for more than a year. I don't think it had anything to do with her get a bit ranty on Manx Forums, so I don't know you mean. Could you explain? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand your point and would like to.

There's quite a few listed in the Death in Police custody thread, although spread throughout the 50 pages so not easy to quickly reference. My favourite remains the Castletown man charged with an offence - some kind of harassment I think - who went through the process for months before the case as reviewed and the prosecution department realised the legislation the man had been charged under was English law and didn't apply here. there are plenty of others.

This isn't about being arrested, which is the police function. This is about the decision to proceed to charge and begin court proceedings, which is a prosecution function. Often, being arrested will not become public, if there is no charge made, and can be a necessary step in any criminal investigation to establish the facts. Being under arrest also offers the 'suspect' certain rights. I'm not saying the police don't get it wrong - they do, almost all of the time - but the damage of being arrested, wrongly, and released without charge is minimal when compared to being charged, taken to court, publicly named, becoming the subject of media reporting and social media gossip, suffering the worry and stress of a long and intimidating process and then, after so many months, being told they can't actually make it stack up so are walking away. Not clearing you after the public and needless shaming, just walking away because they have finally realised they don't really have a case.

In the Isle of Man it is customary to take every allegation to court regardless of the quality of evidence or, indeed, whether the charge is lawful under Manx law (rather than stupidly assuming English laws automatically apply here, which honestly does happen). They seem to hope that the fear of being dragged through the courts will either make the guilty admit it without the effort of evidence being found or the innocent admit it just to get the process over with and stop the public shaming (with regular trips to the court and the accompany media reporting). When it comes to the crunch and the bully boy tactics haven't worked, or the sheer incompetence becomes clear, they have the advantage of just walking away, offering 'no evidence' and moving on to the next shambles. They don't have to worry about the schedules of the already over burdened courts, the immense cost nor the damage done to the the 'accused' and their families. And they keep getting away with it, while we keep paying for it.

So, the Isle of Man's prosecution department enjoys yet another success - link After putting this couple through months and months of stress and worry, they simply decided not to bother offering any evidence. Presumably, after months and months of investigation and careful, professional consideration, they realised they didn't actually have a case to make, so dropped it. It begs the question why the standard of the evidence wasn't fully scrutinised much, much earlier, before thousands (probably tens of thousands) of pounds were wasted with court time, and defence lawyer fees which presumably prosecutions will now have to foot, were built up. It's a waste of our money, and the court's time, for the prosecution to bring poorly constructed cases before them, make them run for months on end and then, when it comes to the point of arguing the case, just dropping it. And it's not as if this is an isolated incident. There is something, or actually someone, very wrong in that department, and it needs examining. But why should they worry? They don't have to pay the bills, or suffer reputation damage - they can just put any old shit in front of the courts without a care for the outcome. If it fails, or has to be dropped, why should they care? We should either have a parliamentary inquiry into prosecutions, especially its 'success' rate in concluding contested charges with a guilty verdict, or make the prosecutors pay the bills when they lose.

There have been huge improvements over the decades, and the provision of children and family services today is almost unrecognisable compared with the 70s, 80s and 90s. But...there are ongoing problems with mismanagement, unprofessional behaviour, bullying, lying, falsifying records and worse in today's children and family services. These are modern, contemporary issues, recent complaints which led to the inquiry report we're not allowed to see. Perhaps most worryingly of all, as the report remains under wraps and the shit is heaped under the carpets, the abuses and mismanagement are continuing unabated. I appreciate some who haven't been subjected to this 'service' may say the families deserve it for being 'scum' or whatever pejorative term you choose, but what seems to be forgotten is there are innocent children involved who are suffering because the professional services which are supposed to help them are more interested in showing off how powerful they are, job protection and colleague defence, or are purely incompetent. As someone once said 'won't someone think of the children'

Well, on September 4 I posted: Such allegations of abuse were brought to your attention, not least in the letter referred to by STT which you aren't clear whether you saw or not. Then Peter Karran further brought such allegations of abuse to your attention, and was largely laughed at by people of your ilk. Thanks to his perseverance and the commitment of some of those who had suffered such abuse and refused to be bullied into silence, we got an independent investigation, which presumably further brought evidence of abuse to your attention. Your response so far has been to deny receiving the letter, not listening to Peter Karran and giving the SS three months to let those who are culpable escape with unblemished records and prepare excuses and lies to undermine the independent report. You know, or if you don't then we should all have serious concerns, that a number of social workers at varying levels of seniority and experience have left the service since the first draft report was completed, notably many who were directly alleged by families to have carried out bullying and abuse. More are in the process of leaving now. Why won't you be on the public's side?