Jump to content

Children's Social Services - Will we ever get it right?


Cronky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jack, why do you have to be such a fucking cock to people? Speak the truth has posted some interesting stuff, and I'm sure they'd be happy to debate it with you like a normal person but you seem to be purposefully antagonistic for no reason at all. You do it to other people too. Are you still suffering shock from the bullying you got at school? Or maybe your mother didn't show you enough love? Stop being a dick.

Speak the Truth has said little of interest other than throw around accusations they are unable to back up. There's too much noise on this issue for me that actually makes the accusers look like they're in denial. I have no issue with pointing that out. What sort of debate are they trying to encourage as they have failed on here and failed on IOM News and Politics as well. The whole lot of them remind me of Viz magazines Milly Tant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jack, why do you have to be such a fucking cock to people? Speak the truth has posted some interesting stuff, and I'm sure they'd be happy to debate it with you like a normal person but you seem to be purposefully antagonistic for no reason at all. You do it to other people too. Are you still suffering shock from the bullying you got at school? Or maybe your mother didn't show you enough love? Stop being a dick.

Speak the Truth has said little of interest other than throw around accusations they are unable to back up. There's too much noise on this issue for me that actually makes the accusers look like they're in denial. I have no issue with pointing that out. What sort of debate are they trying to encourage as they have failed on here and failed on IOM News and Politics as well. The whole lot of them remind me of Viz magazines Milly Tant.

 

I believe adult reading classes are still available and suggest you take up the opportunity to partake.

They may enable you to read what is actually written and not just the words your struggling intellect is able to recognise.

If you did you would see that there is evidence of abuse and some of this evidence has been submitted to the independent investigation, with much more being kept on file for now.

This is to enable a more speedy assessment of the nature of, and severity of those abuses by social services staff and the complicit actions, or lack of actions, by certain politicians.

As it appears that Vis comic, (I appreciate you regard it as as a magazine, but grown ups call them comics), is the level of your intelligence if there are any long words or complicated passages in my posts you need help to understand please do not hesitate to ask.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Jack, why do you have to be such a fucking cock to people? Speak the truth has posted some interesting stuff, and I'm sure they'd be happy to debate it with you like a normal person but you seem to be purposefully antagonistic for no reason at all. You do it to other people too. Are you still suffering shock from the bullying you got at school? Or maybe your mother didn't show you enough love? Stop being a dick.

 

Speak the Truth has said little of interest other than throw around accusations they are unable to back up. There's too much noise on this issue for me that actually makes the accusers look like they're in denial. I have no issue with pointing that out. What sort of debate are they trying to encourage as they have failed on here and failed on IOM News and Politics as well. The whole lot of them remind me of Viz magazines Milly Tant.

I believe adult reading classes are still available and suggest you take up the opportunity to partake.

They may enable you to read what is actually written and not just the words your struggling intellect is able to recognise.

If you did you would see that there is evidence of abuse and some of this evidence has been submitted to the independent investigation, with much more being kept on file for now.

This is to enable a more speedy assessment of the nature of, and severity of those abuses by social services staff and the complicit actions, or lack of actions, by certain politicians.

As it appears that Vis comic, (I appreciate you regard it as as a magazine, but grown ups call them comics), is the level of your intelligence if there are any long words or complicated passages in my posts you need help to understand please do not hesitate to ask.

What a self righteous obnoxious cow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tynwald questions next Tuesday:

 

10. The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Dr Allinson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care –

 

What the procedures are for parents to record child protection conferences relating to their family; and whether such recordings could improve accuracy of minutes and restore confidence in the service?

 

11.The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Dr Allinson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care –

 

How many social workers are employed by Children and Families Social Services; and of these,

how many are

 

(a) temporary staff and

 

(b) employed through an agency?

 

18. The Hon. Member for Garff (Mrs Caine) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care – In respect of interviews of parents carried out by Children and Families Social Services:

 

(a) whether parents who wish to record meetings with children’s social workers require the consent of the social workers present and, if so, in what legislation is the requirement to obtain consent specified;

 

(b) what written guidance her Department has issued to children’s social workers regarding parents recording meetings with social workers; and

 

(c ) whether the advice of the Information Commissioner has been sought on this matter?

 

 

Lone concerns or a wider problem?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tynwald questions next Tuesday:

 

10. The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Dr Allinson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care –

 

What the procedures are for parents to record child protection conferences relating to their family; and whether such recordings could improve accuracy of minutes and restore confidence in the service?

 

11.The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Dr Allinson) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care –

 

How many social workers are employed by Children and Families Social Services; and of these,

how many are

 

(a) temporary staff and

 

(b) employed through an agency?

 

18. The Hon. Member for Garff (Mrs Caine) to ask the Minister for Health and Social Care – In respect of interviews of parents carried out by Children and Families Social Services:

 

(a) whether parents who wish to record meetings with children’s social workers require the consent of the social workers present and, if so, in what legislation is the requirement to obtain consent specified;

 

(b) what written guidance her Department has issued to children’s social workers regarding parents recording meetings with social workers; and

 

(c ) whether the advice of the Information Commissioner has been sought on this matter?

 

 

Lone concerns or a wider problem?

Wider problem with implications for all government departments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An now they are resorting to threats to suppress information about SS abuses being made available to the public.

Fire must be getting bigger with the amount of smoke SS are producing!

 

Date:

Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:47:42 +0000

From:

3s <3s@safestrongsecure.im>

Subject:

Update FYI

To:

Just to keep you all in the loop. This week I recieved a letter from the Attorney General, writing, he says, on the instruction of the DHSC, threatening our charity (3S) with an Injunction against us for "deliberately frustrating, obstructing and delaying the department in the exercise of its statutory functions". We were given 10 days to stop preventing the Department doing its job, or face court action. Just to help matters, we received the letter on Thursday - 9 days into the 10 day grace period!

According to the AG's letter, he has "advised the Department that if such conduct continues, the Department will have no alternative in the best interests of the children concerned to obtain injunctive relief against your charity and its officers to prevent the Department's statutory functions being so frustrated and delayed." - what "such conduct" is, is unspecified.

I am sure it is fairly needless to say to you that we are not doing anything to prevent the Dept from carrying out its proper functon, nor anything that prevents the Dept investigating "difficult and sensitive issues as thoroughly and as professionally possible" - far from it, we have only asked that they would start doing so!

All we have done is collate and submit your evidence to independent investigation. (We used to support families at meetings/conferences but since February we haven't even been allowed to attend). Therefore the only interpretation I have been able to put on this is an attempt at bullying and coercion (scare tactics to frighten us into silence) and - more importantly - an attempt to interfere with a Tynwald ordered investigation. I assume that the motivation is a belief that if they can discredit or detroy the charity, they can, by association discredit the evidence we helped provide. But it wasn't our evidence - it was your evidence.

To attempt to discredit us in this way, while the investigation is ongoing is highly suspect, in my view. It has been suggested that Malcolm Couch asking me to withdraw the covering letter that went in with your evidence was a breach of the Code of Conduct for Government Employees - interfering with a Government investigation. It seems to me that this action through the AG's Chambers (to which someone representing "The Department" has clearly supplied highly inaccurate/dishonest information) is a 2nd attempt at undermining the investigation and therefore a second breach of the Code of Conduct.

In any case, we know that your evidence, and that of other families who have also come forward, demonstrates that the Department was having major delays and failing to follow policy etc long before we became involved. To try and blame us for these types of failings is truly breathtaking. Although the letter is far from specific in explaining what it is we are alleged to be doing that is preventing the Dept operating properly, there is a strong implication that we are accused of disrupting meetings - since we have not attended any how can we possibly disrupt them?

The proposed injunction appears to be to force us to sign up to abide by the "Supporters Leaflet". This is indeed, a document we have objected to - for its negativity and unhelpfulness - but as it is a leaflet for supporters attending meetings and we don't attend meetings that would be a spurious and irrelevent issue. (And at the time when we did attend meetings, that leaflet had not even been created). Also, I do not see how there can be any legal grounds to force anyone to agree with any leaflet - we all have a right to an opinion and in our opinion it is a very poor quality, unhelpful and unfriendly document aimed at minimising the support people can get, rather than being welcoming, supportive or or in any way constructive. To force us to agree to something against our conscience and beliefs woould surely be a Human Rights Act violation? Additionally, no other organisation is being asked to "agree with it or face an injunction". The whole things seems farcical, and apalling that a Government Department would seek to deliberately mislead the Attorney General and then waste his time (and potentially Court time & Tax Payers' money) in this way.

I have replied to the AG pointing out that we have done/are doing nothing that could possibly interfere with the Department's workings, asking if he is aware of the Investigation, and suggesting that this is a highly suspect act by the Department, and a prime example of "Conflict of Interest". I've asked that at the very least the consideration of any Injunction against us should be delayed until after the Investigation is complete.

Tam

Tamasin Wedgwood

Founder Trustee & Secretary

Safe strong Secure - 3S

IOM Charity No. 1133


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

 

Wah wah.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me, and .........

 

 

........everyone said, " Fuck me, about time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the usual strength of feeling over unwarranted government intervention in independent democratic processes expressed on this forum, I find it odd that there isn't more sensible comment on this thread.

Leaving aside whether you think anyone who is involved with Social Services has rights or not - clearly a few people think a family expressing a need for help is licence for them to be abused, bullied, lied to and mistreated by people with too much power and too little training and compassion - surely we can all agree that it is unacceptable for a senior civil servant and a government department to apparently attempt to interfere with a parliamentary inquiry?

A charity has delivered the contributions of some people with an interest in the subject to a Tynwald inquiry. It is for the inquiry to assess whether the contributions are factual and useful to its investigations, and report. It should be an independent process so the public can have some faith in the findings, whatever they are.

It cannot be appropriate for a chief executive to demand that a contribution to a parliamentary inquiry is withdrawn because the contents are unpalatable to a department. It cannot be appropriate for a government department to try and prevent potential evidence being considered by a parliamentary inquiry by using the offices of the attorney general to pursue an injunction.

Whether you are concerned for the families or supportive of social services, the purpose of the Tynwald inquiry is to investigate all contributions and reach an informed, balanced and independent judgment. That's democracy.

This administration is all of five minutes old and one of the first actions is to attempt to interfere with a Tynwald committee to prevent negative views being expressed, essentially attempting to bully critics into silence - much like social workers stand accused of.

If this is how Howard Quayle, who lets not forget was running the department now subject to fairly serious allegations of abuse until recently, operates his government, it won't be long until we look back on the Bell administration as a time of honesty and openness.

Frankly, I expected so much more of Kate Beecroft as a minister. After years of demanding government transparency she is now leading a department which will use every bullying tactic available to prevent anything critical being seen, even if that means interfering with a parliamentary committee.

This action threatens the democratic process, regardless of your view on social workers or 'problem' families, but all this thread seems to be is Jack Carter making fun of what is, however you look at it, a serious situation. You may not care about social services and the way it treats people, but is this really how we want government to respond to parliamentary inquiries - using threats and bullying to silence anyone with a point of view divergent from the 'state' message?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Parliament enquiry request the independent assessor to engage with the charity?

 

Also, is it "evidence" as such or simply people ranting about poor treatment which they themselves cannot really substantiate?

I'm quite surprised to hear that people proactively approach Social Services for "help". I was under the impression that SS became involved in domestic situations as a result of issues that bring SS to the table.

What percentage of people proactively pick up the phone and request help from SS?

 

Also, what sort of situation invokes that sort of proactive contact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone is free to contribute to a parliamentary inquiry and it is for the committee to assess and comment on the value of the contributions. People who have been in the social services system would seem ideally placed to give a view on it, even if you disagree with that view.

My point is that I find it terrifying that this government deems it appropriate to seek to interfere with what a member of the public can say to a parliamentary committee by using intimidation and bullying. When will they start deploying this tactic to interfere with PAC investigations?

 

Sorry, ETA I don't know if these submissions constitute evidence, it's not my role to decide that, but I'm also fairly certain it isn't the role of the department under investigation to suppress any negative comment.

Also, I imagine social services get involved in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons, but I decided to use a rash generalisation to follow the theme of this thread so far, which seems to be that if social services take an interest in your family you relinquish all rights, deserve to be badly treated and are de facto 'scum'.

 

This is a case of a government department using every means at its disposal to try and silence criticism during a parliamentary investigation, which is a worrying subject and surely worthy of debate on here.

Edited by censorship
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone is free to contribute to a parliamentary inquiry and it is for the committee to assess and comment on the value of the contributions. My point is that I find it terrifying that this government deems it appropriate to seek to interfere with what a member of the public can say to a parliamentary committee by using intimidation and bullying.

To be fair I don't think "anyone" has a right to contribute. There has to be some sort of vested interest and relevance along with some evidence to back things up.

 

I could contribute and say SS are terrible. I've had nothing to do with them ever, or have any evidence.

The committee need to focus on what is relevant. It's a time consuming and expensive process.

BTW - you didn't answer any of my other questions. I'm genuinely interested to know - who and why are people approaching SS for "help" as opposed to the other way round?

FWIW - i totally agree Government should not be interfering with the process but I am not sure about "intimidation and bullying". If someone believes the actions of another are genuinely obstructing the enquiry (and have evidence accordingly) then the threat of legal action is fair because it is actionable. If it isn't the case then the other party tells the government to fuck off because they have nothing to fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...