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

[notwell]

The public, based on the report if it proves gross negligence, would expect to know that people have been held accountable and fired.

I'm not saying names should be made public but numbers and the actual fact people or persons were sacked etc should be made public.

You shouldn't be hiding behind data protection as an excuse. It'll only end up the subject of an FOI request anyway.

If you want people to have faith in due process and government then in this instance it's a minimum requirement. 

[Libra]

Can anyone please tell me if Court Welfare Officials are the same people ?

[Neil Down]

13 hours ago, notwell said:

The public, based on the report if it proves gross negligence, would expect to know that people have been held accountable and fired.

I'm not saying names should be made public but numbers and the actual fact people or persons were sacked etc should be made public.

You shouldn't be hiding behind data protection as an excuse. It'll only end up the subject of an FOI request anyway.

If you want people to have faith in due process and government then in this instance it's a minimum requirement. 

Have to love your optimism Notty 

[Speak The Truth]

15 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

Apologies if you did not get a personal acknowledgement of a letter you delivered to all members of Tynwald. Was Tynwald's response requesting provision of evidence to a potential independent investigator not sufficient in itself? Thank you to those who shared evidence, and to those who gathered and presented it to the independent and professionally-qualified Chair of safeguarding Board. I do not believe any individual MHK could evaluate this evidence properly by themselves.

Any grounded evidence evidence of corruption or any other illegal activity will be taken up properly. What evidence can you provide to me that this is not the case? 

Apology not accepted.

The letters were delivered a considerable time prior to either the Select Committee asking for representations, (an action that preceded Peter Karran embarrassing you into allowing an independent investigation), or the independent investigation taking place.

An investigation ordered by one, soon to leave administration but conducted under the next. How unfortunate for the contributors that the new CM just happened to be the same person who was recorded dismissing the complainants as either drug dealers or paedophiles and that they should be ignored, (being polite).

You were also part of the decision making group, guided by that new CM, that voted for that independent investigation to be permitted to operate only within very restricted perimeters dictated by yourselves in conjunction with SS management.

To take evidence from only a small section of those who had made representations to the select committee.

Who also ensured that no social workers would be named in the report, no matter the evidence against them ensuring time for SS to clean their closet prior to names entering the public domain. This also ensured that no action could be taken against them by their governing bodies.

I love your admission that MHK's are to stupid to read files and listen to recordings and that you needed someone else to do it for you. Members of the public sit on jury's every day without having university degrees or expert knowledge, and yet we trust that they can expose the very worst in our society - but MHK's can't!

A rather sad indictment of your abilities.

Grounded evidence of illegal activity has been presented on numerous occasions, not only by victims but also by your own Data Protection Commissioner. But why would you act on any of that when you thought you would be able to brush all under the carpet.

16 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

A Tynwald Committee or Independent report is normally considered in Tynwald with government response. Would any debate this summer not have been one-sided at best, and only partially informed at worst? There will be nearly two weeks for scrutiny of original independent report and government response before first Tynwald consideration, and Tynwald could decide to take more time.

As you and your 'elected by yourselves' Chief (here is another 10 grand job boys) Minister, were aware of the serious nature of the complaints and had refused to even acknowledge the complainants when they contacted you perhaps you can explain to me -

Why would any of those affected be happy with you having access to the report prior to those who gave the evidence to allow its formulation?

Why would anyone, involved or not, accept that it is reasonable that yourselves and SS should have 3+ months to prepare your excuses and hide further evidence?

Why is it that, despite your assurances that copies of the report are available to only a restricted few, social work assistants are offering to share copies of the full report with non SS employees? And yes, I have heard the recording of that.

I, and all reading your drivel, are aware that you are no doubt being told what to write by either the AG or some other civil servant.(I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here).

Your decision to protect yourself by siding with your CoMin colleagues is initially understandable. We are past the initial stages now.

You have an opportunity to rise above the rest by admitting your personal mistakes and helping to clear the rot, enabling the restructuring of SS into a section that actually works for those it serves and not in its own self interest.

Your continued attempts to obscure the truth and to delay accountability amount to nothing less than the extension of the abuses suffered by the children and families at the hands of your employees.

Time to decide - either be The Honourable or The Member.

You cant serve the people of the Island and be both knowing what you know.

 

[Aristotle]

4 hours ago, Speak The Truth said:

Time to decide - either be The Honourable or The Member.

Must jot that down for future use. 

[notwell]

Whilst I can understand SS worker names big withheld from a publically  available report I don't understand how action can be taken by government if essentially no one is specifically named.

Chris - does the independent reporter provide those names separately? 

 

[Chris Thomas]

23 hours ago, notwell said:

Whilst I can understand SS worker names big withheld from a publically  available report I don't understand how action can be taken by government if essentially no one is specifically named.

Chris - does the independent reporter provide those names separately? 

 

Managing staff is for management. Regulating professionals needs to take place according to law, professional standards and professional registration processes etc. Politicians oversee and develop policy, and oversee and develop public service delivery process. Politicians in Government and in Tynwald need to act in the light of the independent report recommendations in respect of all these connected but slightly separate issues. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Chris Thomas

[WTF]

the not up to me and not my fault if nobody gets sacked cards have just been played.........................

 

who sacks management then??

Edited September 3, 2017 by WTF

[Chris Thomas]

16 hours ago, Speak The Truth said:

Apology not accepted.

The letters were delivered a considerable time prior to either the Select Committee asking for representations, (an action that preceded Peter Karran embarrassing you into allowing an independent investigation), or the independent investigation taking place.

An investigation ordered by one, soon to leave administration but conducted under the next. How unfortunate for the contributors that the new CM just happened to be the same person who was recorded dismissing the complainants as either drug dealers or paedophiles and that they should be ignored, (being polite).

You were also part of the decision making group, guided by that new CM, that voted for that independent investigation to be permitted to operate only within very restricted perimeters dictated by yourselves in conjunction with SS management.

To take evidence from only a small section of those who had made representations to the select committee.

Who also ensured that no social workers would be named in the report, no matter the evidence against them ensuring time for SS to clean their closet prior to names entering the public domain. This also ensured that no action could be taken against them by their governing bodies.

I love your admission that MHK's are to stupid to read files and listen to recordings and that you needed someone else to do it for you. Members of the public sit on jury's every day without having university degrees or expert knowledge, and yet we trust that they can expose the very worst in our society - but MHK's can't!

A rather sad indictment of your abilities.

Grounded evidence of illegal activity has been presented on numerous occasions, not only by victims but also by your own Data Protection Commissioner. But why would you act on any of that when you thought you would be able to brush all under the carpet.

As you and your 'elected by yourselves' Chief (here is another 10 grand job boys) Minister, were aware of the serious nature of the complaints and had refused to even acknowledge the complainants when they contacted you perhaps you can explain to me -

Why would any of those affected be happy with you having access to the report prior to those who gave the evidence to allow its formulation?

Why would anyone, involved or not, accept that it is reasonable that yourselves and SS should have 3+ months to prepare your excuses and hide further evidence?

Why is it that, despite your assurances that copies of the report are available to only a restricted few, social work assistants are offering to share copies of the full report with non SS employees? And yes, I have heard the recording of that.

I, and all reading your drivel, are aware that you are no doubt being told what to write by either the AG or some other civil servant.(I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here).

Your decision to protect yourself by siding with your CoMin colleagues is initially understandable. We are past the initial stages now.

You have an opportunity to rise above the rest by admitting your personal mistakes and helping to clear the rot, enabling the restructuring of SS into a section that actually works for those it serves and not in its own self interest.

Your continued attempts to obscure the truth and to delay accountability amount to nothing less than the extension of the abuses suffered by the children and families at the hands of your employees.

Time to decide - either be The Honourable or The Member.

You cant serve the people of the Island and be both knowing what you know.

 

Please can I have a copy of the letter and the recording you mention.

I was not involved in specifying ToR of independent investigation, and any investigation could not begin until case information was presented.

Rarely do officials get named in Tynwald.

An independent investigation could have taken place at any time. It could have been a Tynwald Select Committee investigation, or an Independent Inquiry under the 2003 Act, but the Tynwald motion required evidence to be provided to the independent Chair of the safeguarding board.

No evidence is being hidden from independent investigator - the independent report has been finalized. No excuses are being prepared, merely an action plan which builds on action already taken.

Please bring to my attention immediately information regarding abuse by any public servants.

Thank you.

[Aristotle]

25 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

Please bring to my attention immediately information regarding abuse by any public servants.

It sounds like Speak The Truth already sent you information. Are you saying you never received anything from anybody? Would be interested to know what method Speak The Truth used or what email address, to see if information was prevented from reaching you.

[integrity]

Concerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htmConcerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htmConcerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htm

 

As a matter of interest were these concerns addressed?

Did any inquiry take place in 2012 six years after it was recommended?

What was the result of that investigation if it ever to place?

[Chris Thomas]

11 minutes ago, integrity said:

Concerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htmConcerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htmConcerns over Manx child care raised in Tynwald - BBC News.htm

 

As a matter of interest were these concerns addressed?

Did any inquiry take place in 2012 six years after it was recommended?

What was the result of that investigation if it ever to place?

The Scottish Care Inspectorate reported at the beginning of 2014. See https://www.gov.im/news/2014/mar/05/inspection-report-on-childrens-services/

Reeporting on follow up work is now due.

[Chris Thomas]

1 hour ago, Aristotle said:

It sounds like Speak The Truth already sent you information. Are you saying you never received anything from anybody? Would be interested to know what method Speak The Truth used or what email address, to see if information was prevented from reaching you.

STT apparently delivered a letter to all members of Tynwald via clerk's office.

I was not involved in the 2016/17 independent inquiry and have not seen any of the evidence in that inquiry. 

[Aristotle]

13 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

STT apparently delivered a letter to all members of Tynwald via clerk's office.

I was not involved in the 2016/17 independent inquiry and have not seen any of the evidence in that inquiry. 

Probably best not sending anything via the Tynwald Clerk's Office, especially if it's private or confidential. Always send directly.

[Speak The Truth]

5 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

Please can I have a copy of the letter and the recording you mention.

I was not involved in specifying ToR of independent investigation, and any investigation could not begin until case information was presented.

Rarely do officials get named in Tynwald.

An independent investigation could have taken place at any time. It could have been a Tynwald Select Committee investigation, or an Independent Inquiry under the 2003 Act, but the Tynwald motion required evidence to be provided to the independent Chair of the safeguarding board.

No evidence is being hidden from independent investigator - the independent report has been finalized. No excuses are being prepared, merely an action plan which builds on action already taken.

Please bring to my attention immediately information regarding abuse by any public servants.

Thank you.

You have already had a copy of the letter and chose to ignore it. Check your previous correspondence, no doubt it will be filed under inconvenient.

Peter Karran, Howard Quayle, Kate Beecroft and others have all acknowledged having seen it but for some reason you have no recollection.

I wonder why? That's a lie, we both know why.

Given your disregard for previous communications and offers to provide you with evidence do you really expect anyone to trust you enough to provide you with recordings now?

Those recordings are safely stored, off Island, along with copies of much of the evidence given to the independent inspectors.

Depending on families wishes the recordings and the evidence, may be released to selected sections of the UK and global press as well as being made available for consideration by the public at large should appropriate action not be taken by you and your buddies.

 I am sure you will receive copies of all  2 to 3 months after that release in line with Tynwald accepted protocols, lets face it the Department you head has proven itself to be irresponsible and incompetent where data protection is concerned.

How stupid do you think people are?

No need to answer, you already have by attempting to show yourself be concerned now, whilst still abdicating responsibility to the managers you appoint and make excuses for.

There will be either a paper or digital trail from those 'select' few' permitted to have copies of the report, follow it. Very select few SS employees given access - not many to investigate. Might take a few years for you to follow every second link though.

Perhaps you can inform us of exactly what action has been taken since the Scottish audit in 2012, it would also be helpful if you could prove that action was taken. Good luck with that, to help you Waterstones has a fantasy section you can use for reference.

You are very good at quoting Tynwald process and distancing yourself from either responsibility or accountability whilst attempting to appear accommodating, once again - just how stupid do you think the public are?