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

[Uhtred]

7 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

I am assured that the very limited distribution of the independent report has been carefully controlled and is subject to the statutory confidentiality of Council of Ministers documents etc..

 

Hmmmm...

[Uhtred]

7 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

I am assured that the very limited distribution of the independent report has been carefully controlled and is subject to the statutory confidentiality of Council of Ministers documents etc..

 

I notice that you are relying on the assurance of others rather than giving that assurance yourself. Arse covering..?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Uhtred
Typo

[Speak The Truth]

On 26/08/2017 at 10:16 AM, Chris Thomas said:

I am assured that the very limited distribution of the independent report has been carefully controlled and is subject to the statutory confidentiality of Council of Ministers documents etc..

 

Limited to all and sundry who may need to cover their arses.

Considering the allegations that have been proven by the report you are relying on the assurances of those the report exposes, I am sure the public has full confidence in your statement -not.

I also note that you have no comment to make on the fact that you, and your colleagues had all been personally notified of, and were aware of the allegations against children and families and had been offered the chance to review evidence during your last term but chose not to do so, failing to even respond to those who contacted you.

Your inaction then and your continued denials and evasion shows you to be a guilty SS in the cover up that was attempted.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Speak The Truth

[Boo Gay'n]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:13 PM, Speak The Truth said:

Limited to all and sundry who may need to cover their arses.

Considering the allegations that have been proven by the report you are relying on the assurances of those the report exposes, I am sure the public has full confidence in your statement -not.

I also note that you have no comment to make on the fact that you, and your colleagues had all been personally notified of, and were aware of the allegations against children and families and had been offered the chance to review evidence during your last term but chose not to do so, failing to even respond to those who contacted you.

Your inaction then and your continued denials and evasion shows you to be a guilty SS in the cover up that was attempted.

This is all a bit dodgy STT.  I agree that the report should be published now.  Holding it back until Chris Thomas has overseen the production of an action plan can only seem shady.

You say that allegations have been proven by the report.  That means that you are telling us that you have seen it.  That means that you are a member of the council of ministers or their senior civil servants, one of the senior social workers that you claim to hate so much, a member of one of the families who complained or that someone in one of those groups has shown you their copy.  I guess that you want us to believe that you are one of the family members.  If so, are you potentially breaking some sort of law by posting about the outcomes of the report?

If I remember what Karran was ranting and raving about last year it wasn’t that there weren’t good reasons for social services to carry our child protection investigations – the complaints were about how they carried out that work.  In our crossing of swords on MF I take the side of the children and you take the side of the parents or other relevant adults.  I think that my position is better, even if the adults feel upset about being investigated.  We have to protect the children first, not the adults who might well be abusers.

I didn’t know that you had sent material to members of Tynwald and been ignored.  If that is true, Thomas and his ilk have questions to answer.

[censorship]

On 8/26/2017 at 10:16 AM, Chris Thomas said:

I am assured that the very limited distribution of the independent report has been carefully controlled and is subject to the statutory confidentiality of Council of Ministers documents etc..

 

So, in short, you are confirming that the full report has been shared, unredacted, with social workers and their managers while being denied to those members of the public who gave evidence? And yet you suggest there is no intention to subvert a process which should result in disciplinary if not criminal action against some government employees or contract holders?

It is evident to anyone who has ever seen the Isle of Man Government in action exactly what is happening. There is no genuine reason, at all, that this report could not have been laid before Tynwald in July so the public could see for itself whether there are issue or not and for the department to report back with an action plan, if one is required, in October.

Claiming the report must be held back until October so it can be presented alongside an action plan is, firstly, an admission failings have been identified, other wise why would you need an action plan? Secondly, it allows people who were at fault to step away from the department, without facing disciplinary or criminal action, for early retirements to be speedily progressed, and for explanations/excuses to any criticisms to be prepared and rehearsed in advance of October, so all backs are adequately covered.

This is another clear case of government pulling up the drawbridge to protect its own, including anyone who has done wrong (must be someone, otherwise why an action plan?), and disadvantaging those families which came forward with evidence of abuse, bullying, lies, threats and worse. The fact some were paid off demonstrates government has a 'divide and conquer' attitude and will not tolerate whistle blowers.

But remember Mr Thomas, evidence was only taken from a small sample of families with complaints - specimen charges if you will - and if the severity of the failings (again, must be some otherwise why do you need an action plan) is not clearly admitted, and those responsible held to account, the system will remain broken and you will see more and more families coming forward with their horrendous experiences. If, for example, it is demonstrated someone's tragic death was caused or contributed to by the actions of social workers, after this investigation commenced and possibly after CoMin had the report, how will you live with that? 

[notwell]

1 hour ago, censorship said:

So, in short, you are confirming that the full report has been shared, unredacted, with social workers and their managers while being denied to those members of the public who gave evidence? And yet you suggest there is no intention to subvert a process which should result in disciplinary if not criminal action against some government employees or contract holders?

It is evident to anyone who has ever seen the Isle of Man Government in action exactly what is happening. There is no genuine reason, at all, that this report could not have been laid before Tynwald in July so the public could see for itself whether there are issue or not and for the department to report back with an action plan, if one is required, in October.

Claiming the report must be held back until October so it can be presented alongside an action plan is, firstly, an admission failings have been identified, other wise why would you need an action plan? Secondly, it allows people who were at fault to step away from the department, without facing disciplinary or criminal action, for early retirements to be speedily progressed, and for explanations/excuses to any criticisms to be prepared and rehearsed in advance of October, so all backs are adequately covered.

This is another clear case of government pulling up the drawbridge to protect its own, including anyone who has done wrong (must be someone, otherwise why an action plan?), and disadvantaging those families which came forward with evidence of abuse, bullying, lies, threats and worse. The fact some were paid off demonstrates government has a 'divide and conquer' attitude and will not tolerate whistle blowers.

But remember Mr Thomas, evidence was only taken from a small sample of families with complaints - specimen charges if you will - and if the severity of the failings (again, must be some otherwise why do you need an action plan) is not clearly admitted, and those responsible held to account, the system will remain broken and you will see more and more families coming forward with their horrendous experiences. If, for example, it is demonstrated someone's tragic death was caused or contributed to by the actions of social workers, after this investigation commenced and possibly after CoMin had the report, how will you live with that? 

That's a very big allegation you're making there.

[WTF]

but possibly correct.

[Uhtred]

5 hours ago, censorship said:

So, in short, you are confirming that the full report has been shared, unredacted, with social workers and their managers while being denied to those members of the public who gave evidence? And yet you suggest there is no intention to subvert a process which should result in disciplinary if not criminal action against some government employees or contract holders?

It is evident to anyone who has ever seen the Isle of Man Government in action exactly what is happening. There is no genuine reason, at all, that this report could not have been laid before Tynwald in July so the public could see for itself whether there are issue or not and for the department to report back with an action plan, if one is required, in October.

Claiming the report must be held back until October so it can be presented alongside an action plan is, firstly, an admission failings have been identified, other wise why would you need an action plan? Secondly, it allows people who were at fault to step away from the department, without facing disciplinary or criminal action, for early retirements to be speedily progressed, and for explanations/excuses to any criticisms to be prepared and rehearsed in advance of October, so all backs are adequately covered.

This is another clear case of government pulling up the drawbridge to protect its own, including anyone who has done wrong (must be someone, otherwise why an action plan?), and disadvantaging those families which came forward with evidence of abuse, bullying, lies, threats and worse. The fact some were paid off demonstrates government has a 'divide and conquer' attitude and will not tolerate whistle blowers.

But remember Mr Thomas, evidence was only taken from a small sample of families with complaints - specimen charges if you will - and if the severity of the failings (again, must be some otherwise why do you need an action plan) is not clearly admitted, and those responsible held to account, the system will remain broken and you will see more and more families coming forward with their horrendous experiences. If, for example, it is demonstrated someone's tragic death was caused or contributed to by the actions of social workers, after this investigation commenced and possibly after CoMin had the report, how will you live with that? 

The existence of an action plan does not, as you suggest, automatically indicate that a person or persons have done wrong. It would be perfectly possible and reasonable to have an action plan to modernise or modify working practices or processes that had been identified as capable of improvement...without any individual necessarily being at fault.

Where I do subscribe to your comments (reflecting, it seems, the sentiments of others) is that it would be much more open and transparent for the report to have been published asap, ahead of the compilation of any action plan, so that "stakeholders" (dreadful term) could have proffered a view on the complexion of an action plan. The approach being adopted gives rise to suspicion that government has, at worst, been tinkering with the report, or its presentation, or, at best, been manoeuvering  to give itself a head start on responding to the report and will present an action plan that is a fait accompli. Chris Thomas's comments to justify government's position are lightweight and, with typical politicians' lack of backbone, it's all "I'm assured this...government has done that...". No personal commitment given to underwrite the reliability of the report/process; ready for him to slip out from under if it turns stinky. He's not the first to do this but it still leaves a nasty taste.

Thomas is absolutely dyed-in-the-wool establishment now, after his brief (pre-COMIN) flirtation with bringing a new approach - which it seems his former fans on MF have noticed, judging by their disinclination to offer their previously fawning support.

[Parrot]

9 hours ago, censorship said:

So, in short, you are confirming that the full report has been shared, unredacted, with social workers and their managers while being denied to those members of the public who gave evidence? And yet you suggest there is no intention to subvert a process which should result in disciplinary if not criminal action against some government employees or contract holders?

It is evident to anyone who has ever seen the Isle of Man Government in action exactly what is happening. There is no genuine reason, at all, that this report could not have been laid before Tynwald in July so the public could see for itself whether there are issue or not and for the department to report back with an action plan, if one is required, in October.

Claiming the report must be held back until October so it can be presented alongside an action plan is, firstly, an admission failings have been identified, other wise why would you need an action plan? Secondly, it allows people who were at fault to step away from the department, without facing disciplinary or criminal action, for early retirements to be speedily progressed, and for explanations/excuses to any criticisms to be prepared and rehearsed in advance of October, so all backs are adequately covered.

This is another clear case of government pulling up the drawbridge to protect its own, including anyone who has done wrong (must be someone, otherwise why an action plan?), and disadvantaging those families which came forward with evidence of abuse, bullying, lies, threats and worse. The fact some were paid off demonstrates government has a 'divide and conquer' attitude and will not tolerate whistle blowers.

But remember Mr Thomas, evidence was only taken from a small sample of families with complaints - specimen charges if you will - and if the severity of the failings (again, must be some otherwise why do you need an action plan) is not clearly admitted, and those responsible held to account, the system will remain broken and you will see more and more families coming forward with their horrendous experiences. If, for example, it is demonstrated someone's tragic death was caused or contributed to by the actions of social workers, after this investigation commenced and possibly after CoMin had the report, how will you live with that? 

You need help.

[Chris Thomas]

10 hours ago, censorship said:

So, in short, you are confirming that the full report has been shared, unredacted, with social workers and their managers while being denied to those members of the public who gave evidence? And yet you suggest there is no intention to subvert a process which should result in disciplinary if not criminal action against some government employees or contract holders?

"..

No. The independent report has neither been redacted nor shared widely. There is neither a cover up nor an attempt to subvert any process.

10 hours ago, censorship said:

But remember Mr Thomas, evidence was only taken from a small sample of families with complaints - specimen charges if you will - and if the severity of the failings (again, must be some otherwise why do you need an action plan) is not clearly admitted, and those responsible held to account, the system will remain broken and you will see more and more families coming forward with their horrendous experiences.

You are right. Only a few cases were considered by the independent inspector, and these were self-selecting. The Scottish Inspectorate considered more cases, for instance.

You write with vengeance. Do you want better social services or something more than that?

 

[Neil Down]

4 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

No. The independent report has neither been redacted nor shared widely. There is neither a cover up nor an attempt to subvert any process.

You are right. Only a few cases were considered by the independent inspector, and these were self-selecting. The Scottish Inspectorate considered more cases, for instance.

You write with vengeance. Do you want better social services or something more than that?

 

 I think he's looking for transparency

[Chris Thomas]

4 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Where I do subscribe to your comments (reflecting, it seems, the sentiments of others) is that it would be much more open and transparent for the report to have been published asap, ahead of the compilation of any action plan, so that "stakeholders" (dreadful term) could have proffered a view on the complexion of an action plan. The approach being adopted gives rise to suspicion that government has, at worst, been tinkering with the report, or its presentation, or, at best, been manoeuvering  to give itself a head start on responding to the report and will present an action plan that is a fait accompli. Chris Thomas's comments to justify government's position are lightweight and, with typical politicians' lack of backbone, it's all "I'm assured this...government has done that...". No personal commitment given to underwrite the reliability of the report/process; ready for him to slip out from under if it turns stinky. He's not the first to do this but it still leaves a nasty taste.

There would be sanctions for unauthorized distribution of the independent report.

The report and action plan will be in Tynwald. Anyone will be able to comment on these documents and suggest action. Tynwald members will be able to move anything in respect of them.

[Chris Thomas]

2 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

 I think he's looking for transparency

The full original independent report will be published on Tynwald order paper. That is completely transparent.

Some seem to want more than transparency.

[Neil Down]

1 minute ago, Chris Thomas said:

The full original independent report will be published on Tynwald order paper. That is completely transparent.

Some seem to want more than transparency.

I think it is the timing aspect of it that seems to be bothering people the most.

[Chris Thomas]

1 minute ago, Neil Down said:

I think it is the timing aspect of it that seems to be bothering people the most.

Thanks Neil Down. October is the next Tynwald.