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

[censorship]

15 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

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

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?

[notwell]

How many have left and how many are leaving? Is it standard turnover or do you know for a fact it relates to the report? 

Surely if they are directly implicated in the report then they'll be sacked?

[twinkle]

Is the last sentence serious??.

[censorship]

21 hours ago, notwell said:

How many have left and how many are leaving? Is it standard turnover or do you know for a fact it relates to the report? 

Surely if they are directly implicated in the report then they'll be sacked?

While there has been, inevitably, some natural staff turnover, I know, for a fact, that some have departed as a result of the investigation starting (fear of exposure?) and others as a result of the draft findings. For some this is a simple process, they are employed on a short-term rolling contract basis so they can parachute out/be quietly disposed of simply by not renewing contracts. They can then move to other authorities with unblemished records and carry on the bullying. Others are directly employed, which presents more of an issue and takes time to ensure they can step away without a fuss, through retirement (early in some cases), resignation or relocation to new positions/departments.

Regarding your final sentence, that is what one would assume would happen (as well as some criminal investigation in some cases). But it doesn't appear to be happening does it? It looks like instead of delivering the report, warts and all, in July, which could have happened as it was ready, it was delayed until the next sitting, which just happened to be three months later, giving ample time to clear the decks of anyone criticised without anyone facing any disciplinary investigation.

Convenient that.

[Albert Tatlock]

I presume social workers, proven to have done wrong,  regardless of where they work, can be 'struck off' some professional register?

[censorship]

31 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

I presume social workers, proven to have done wrong,  regardless of where they work, can be 'struck off' some professional register?

Yes, a record can be made on their professional file or they can be struck off. But only if a finding of wrongdoing is made against them. If they are given three months to clear their desks, get a new job and sail off into the distance, and their previous employers says 'yes, individual cases on wrongdoing were identified by they no longer work for the department so no disciplinary action can be taken', then that black mark is never recorded.

That not only allows lying bullies to ply their evil trade on other unsuspecting vulnerable families, but also ensures the previous employer's dirty linen isn't air in public.

Not that any of this is happening, obviously... 

[paswt]

6 minutes ago, censorship said:

Yes, a record can be made on their professional file or they can be struck off. But only if a finding of wrongdoing is made against them. If they are given three months to clear their desks, get a new job and sail off into the distance, and their previous employers says 'yes, individual cases on wrongdoing were identified by they no longer work for the department so no disciplinary action can be taken', then that black mark is never recorded.

That not only allows lying bullies to ply their evil trade on other unsuspecting vulnerable families, but also ensures the previous employer's dirty linen isn't air in public.

Not that any of this is happening, obviously... 

Can't comment on this specific case but I have worked in  Local Authorities where folk have screwed up and it has been suggested that they find alternative employment quickly to avoid  a disciplinary procedure . 

I suspect it was also an easier option for management , involving less work and the chance of being criticised for failing to supervise  a subordinate adequately.

Just saying ( and I was not employed on this island  )

[John Wright]

Any figures on how many social workers in child care over last 5 years have been full time established and how many have been supply, agency, cover, locum, temporary, short term contract?

[integrity]

On 9/3/2017 at 8:52 PM, Chris Thomas said:

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.

Are you happy, given we are looking to the care of our children, that you as a member of government have allowed this scandal to stretch for a decade?

 

 

[dilligaf]

16 minutes ago, integrity said:

Are you happy, given we are looking to the care of our children, that you as a member of government have allowed this scandal to stretch for a decade?

 

 

given that none of us know much about the situation, there is an awful lot of comment and advice being bandied about.

This whole thing may turn out to be absolutely fuck all and in the meantime a lot of people's careers have been under the spotlight for no reason whatsoever.

I could make a guess at what has happended, but I won't, because too much is at stake.

How come we have so many experts over here. Amazing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by dilligaf

[the stinking enigma]

Social services are supposed to be the experts dilli. I think that's maybe the point

[dilligaf]

4 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Social services are supposed to be the experts dilli. I think that's maybe the point

I'll reserve judgement until I see the true picture. Maybe some time, but I'll wait.

[the stinking enigma]

You've got no choice but to wait

[censorship]

13 hours ago, dilligaf said:

given that none of us know much about the situation, there is an awful lot of comment and advice being bandied about.

This whole thing may turn out to be absolutely fuck all and in the meantime a lot of people's careers have been under the spotlight for no reason whatsoever.

You could well be right, but how would we know? We've paid for an independent investigation that we're currently not allowed to see the outcome from.

There could be nothing wrong, in which case the innocent professionals are having to live in this shadow for no reason, and that's government's fault.

I think all we can do is read between the lines. People complained and that, in itself, doesn't mean anything is wrong, but it did lead to an independent investigation which would suggest there was sufficient evidence of potential problems for government/parliament to at least look into it. A report has been presented, but we aren't allowed to see it until October, so it can be presented with an 'action plan'. If the report finding was that the complainants had no evidence of alleged wrongdoing and everything was fine, I'd have thought it would have just been published straightaway. The fact an 'action plan' is required would suggest the investigation found something that needed fixing, and that it was sufficiently serious for the findings to remain confidential (extremely so, with threat of legal action) until an official response had been formulated, over a three month period.

In the absence of concrete fact we are left with supposition, and the most generous interpretation of the current situation is the investigation found improvements could be made, otherwise why have an action plan? So, I think it is unlikely it will 'turn out to be absolutely fuck all'.

Mr Thomas has gone awfully quiet recently.

[WTF]

3 hours ago, censorship said:

 

Mr Thomas has gone awfully quiet recently.

he knows his rhetoric and spin can not withstand debate so he avoids entering into it.