Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Cronky

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

Recommended Posts

 

please answer "censorship" mrs gemma or shut up.

Gemma is either lying about what she knows, in which case she should indeed shut up, or has been given access to the already prepared findings of an investigation which, as we know, is still ongoing and some way off concluding. If the latter is true then it only serves to underline what many feared, that this inquiry will be a whitewash with social services dictating the conclusions and recommendations to protect itself.

 

Really?

 

If it is such a whitewash then why are the inspectors delaying final reporting and revisiting several times?

 

Honestly, people like you irritate me. You want an investigation, you get one. And if the investigation doesn't conclude the same as you are hoping for then it's a whitewash.

Aren't the people investigating coming from the UK to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

please answer "censorship" mrs gemma or shut up.

Gemma is either lying about what she knows, in which case she should indeed shut up, or has been given access to the already prepared findings of an investigation which, as we know, is still ongoing and some way off concluding. If the latter is true then it only serves to underline what many feared, that this inquiry will be a whitewash with social services dictating the conclusions and recommendations to protect itself.

 

Really?

 

If it is such a whitewash then why are the inspectors delaying final reporting and revisiting several times?

 

Honestly, people like you irritate me. You want an investigation, you get one. And if the investigation doesn't conclude the same as you are hoping for then it's a whitewash.

Aren't the people investigating coming from the UK to do this?

 

Rather than ranting like you, I'll remain calm and answer you be restating the point I think I quite clearly made.

IF someone already knows the outcome, that two named individuals have been 'cleared', before the investigation has even finished gathering evidence never mind compiled its report, that raises a question about the integrity of the process, suggesting the outcome is decided ahead of the inquiry concluded and that the pre-written conclusions are being shared.

However, that is only IF Gemma is telling the truth. If she's mistaken or lying then the integrity of the investigation remains in tact.

Can you follow that quite simple thought process?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

please answer "censorship" mrs gemma or shut up.

Gemma is either lying about what she knows, in which case she should indeed shut up, or has been given access to the already prepared findings of an investigation which, as we know, is still ongoing and some way off concluding. If the latter is true then it only serves to underline what many feared, that this inquiry will be a whitewash with social services dictating the conclusions and recommendations to protect itself.

 

Really?

 

If it is such a whitewash then why are the inspectors delaying final reporting and revisiting several times?

 

Honestly, people like you irritate me. You want an investigation, you get one. And if the investigation doesn't conclude the same as you are hoping for then it's a whitewash.

Aren't the people investigating coming from the UK to do this?

 

Rather than ranting like you, I'll remain calm and answer you be restating the point I think I quite clearly made.

IF someone already knows the outcome, that two named individuals have been 'cleared', before the investigation has even finished gathering evidence never mind compiled its report, that raises a question about the integrity of the process, suggesting the outcome is decided ahead of the inquiry concluded and that the pre-written conclusions are being shared.

However, that is only IF Gemma is telling the truth. If she's mistaken or lying then the integrity of the investigation remains in tact.

Can you follow that quite simple thought process?

 

 

I think most people can follow that limited logic, but it ignores the fact that during investigations some people who are actually innocent get cleared and ruled out of any wrong doing before an investigation actually reaches it's conclusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

please answer "censorship" mrs gemma or shut up.

Gemma is either lying about what she knows, in which case she should indeed shut up, or has been given access to the already prepared findings of an investigation which, as we know, is still ongoing and some way off concluding. If the latter is true then it only serves to underline what many feared, that this inquiry will be a whitewash with social services dictating the conclusions and recommendations to protect itself.

Really?

 

If it is such a whitewash then why are the inspectors delaying final reporting and revisiting several times?

 

Honestly, people like you irritate me. You want an investigation, you get one. And if the investigation doesn't conclude the same as you are hoping for then it's a whitewash.

Aren't the people investigating coming from the UK to do this?

Rather than ranting like you, I'll remain calm and answer you be restating the point I think I quite clearly made.

IF someone already knows the outcome, that two named individuals have been 'cleared', before the investigation has even finished gathering evidence never mind compiled its report, that raises a question about the integrity of the process, suggesting the outcome is decided ahead of the inquiry concluded and that the pre-written conclusions are being shared.

However, that is only IF Gemma is telling the truth. If she's mistaken or lying then the integrity of the investigation remains in tact.

Can you follow that quite simple thought process?

I think most people can follow that limited logic, but it ignores the fact that during investigations some people who are actually innocent get cleared and ruled out of any wrong doing before an investigation actually reaches it's conclusion.

Plus Gemma clearly said that is was an unrelated investigation that they've been cleared on. Stt referred to two separate investigations himself- the general one and one specifically into the two people which Gemma said has been concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have not been clear maybe you didn't see my post before it was hidden. I did not nor do I have any information re the interim findings from the independent investigation. That was my point in asking that people refrain from naming individuals that are identifiable on this forum until the conclusion at least of the investigation.

 

I like you and every member here await those findings and if this is against the department or and individuals then that will be the conclusion and if there are consequences or learning then that will be for those in power to address.

 

My comment was in response to the member who stated that there was an ongoing investigation into separate matters not being addressed by the independent investigation.

 

Just for the record I believe that anyone in a public position should be held accountable if their practice falls below their professional standards. I to await the outcome of the investigation with interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that we should all await the outcome of the investigation. No matter how good anyone thinks their information is, they only have one side, not all the other information that will be considered in the investigation.

 

This is not the place for crusades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gemma

'Just for the record I believe that anyone in a public position should be held accountable if their practice falls below their professional standards. I to await the outcome of the investigation with interest.'

 

Can we assume then, as an insider, you have volunteered your services to the investigators and are prepared to whistle blow on the practices of social workers?

I think not.

 

You will no doubt claim you are unaware of any malpractice, manipulation,data protection breaches or any other bad behaviour from any social workers, their managers or any member of staff employed by ss, and if you were aware of it you would report it to the investigation.

 

And in your arrogance you would expect everyone to believe you.

Few, if any, will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly the IOM Courts recently released an updated Social Media guidelines for those involved in childrens[sic] cases as a press release (it's dated December). Most of this is sensible, sensitive, even wise, but there is a rather strange bit at the end:

 

ABUSIVE, AGGRESSIVE OR THREATENING LETTERS, POSTINGS, TEXTS OR EMAILS ADDRESSED OR COPIED TO THE COURT, MEMBERS OF COURT STAFF, ADVOCATES, COURT WELFARE OFFICERS, SOCIAL WORKERS OR EXPERTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND ARE VERY LIKELY TO AFFECT THE COURT’S DECISION

 

Now apart from violating one of the most basic rules of the internet (USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A NUTTER), this also seems violate the most basic principle of how decisions in the family courts should be made - that the interests of the child(ren) should be the most important thing. Apparently the most important thing is really the tender feelings of the government workers and if they are hurt, they will take your kids off you out of spite. It may well not be what was intended - but it rather comes across as that ESPECIALLY IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

Obviously I'm not saying that such communications are a good thing when addressed to anyone. Rather it's that the way it is written suggests that the main concern of the Courts is protecting the sensitive feelings of the professionals involved. It spoils an otherwise sensible and useful document. It's also badly worded - implying for example that anyone copying on an offensive document they have receive, to such a professional may be doing the wrong thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...