Jump to content

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


Cronky
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

You appear to be stereotypical of the sort of ultra aggressive tracksuit wearing fish wives who end up, along with their hyperactive unruly progeny, being baby sat by the social care system. No wonder the social workers are regarded as being so totalitarian and akin to the Nazis when they have to perpetually spend their working days dealing with foul mouthed guttersnipe types and their unruly urchin children. It must be thoroughly depressing.

Sounds like class bigotry to me. Speak The Truth is quite articulate; I have no doubt he or she is not a fish wife in a tracksuit.

Not at all. The message being conveyed is quite hideous. It's only the lower orders and their guttersnipe views that would result in the views expressed by Speak The Truth. They are clearly subnormal in their view of the social care system.

 

 

I've never had any personal or familial involvement with Social Services. However, I have worked with them in a professional capacity and my opinion is that "Speak The Truth" has a fairly accurate view of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

when it comes to complaining about social services it's not a surprise when people have their kids taken from then they will feel aggrieved. I've had first hand dealings with them and the decision to take kids arent made lightly they have to investigate allegations in today's blame and compo culture if they miss something they will get it in the neck. I also know a number of parents who are in denial about what's happening or how badly they are strughling despite mountains of evidence to prove otherwise and feel they're being picked on when that isn't the case.

 

and you probably also know of cases where social services have fucked up but aren't mentioning those??

 

 

He obviously works for Social Services. It's nice to know that their employees have such a contemptuous and obnoxious attitude toward families they're supposedly in the business of helping. Ironically, it only confirms everything Speak The Truth has said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say llap has made a pretty good observation.There are other happenings too though, such as getting promoted out of a situation so that all your fuck-ups get put onto someone new, who will try and start afresh, in an attempt for the Dept to dodge the bullets, wriggle off the hook.

 

Another is leaving, but, it would appear not voluntarily.

 

There needs to be a PAG meeting with someone from Isle of Man Social Services answering the questions from the public.

 

The nearest we got was Steve Rodan, now President of Tynwald and was chair of some committee looking into this sort of stuff. He came out with his typical narrow viewed words of wisdom, that whatever they are doing, if it saves just one life it is worth it. It sounded grand and Steve was smug as fuck as he purred the words out. Allan Norman paused, and took a couple of sentences to blow sanctimonious Steve's assertion right out of the water.

 

Did you go to the meeting notty or do you just do the smug as fuck thing from behind your keyboard?

I didn't go to the meeting. Better things to do to be honest.

 

There is far too much whole sale slagging of social services. No one doubts there are some issues there (as there are most work places) but this assertion that everyone is out on some sort of trouble causing power trip is bollocks.

 

It's a tough job. Largely dealing with unfit parents. Worse still, dealing with unfit parents often in total denial.

 

It's not a job I could do. I would take it too personally and want to punch some of the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You appear to be stereotypical of the sort of ultra aggressive tracksuit wearing fish wives who end up, along with their hyperactive unruly progeny, being baby sat by the social care system. No wonder the social workers are regarded as being so totalitarian and akin to the Nazis when they have to perpetually spend their working days dealing with foul mouthed guttersnipe types and their unruly urchin children. It must be thoroughly depressing.

Someone appears to have swallowed a dictionary and a thesaurus.

I do hope you ensure your absolutions are thorough when you exit the anal passage you have obviously crawled up in order to reference them.

Your opinions appear as being formed by one who has actually worked for the SS, or perhaps by being related to a member of the organisation that treats its 'customers' with the obvious contempt that is shown by those employed to help those in need.

Putting on my shell suit, you are a cock, (phallus, penis, member, dick, knob, willy, prick etc etc etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

when it comes to complaining about social services it's not a surprise when people have their kids taken from then they will feel aggrieved. I've had first hand dealings with them and the decision to take kids arent made lightly they have to investigate allegations in today's blame and compo culture if they miss something they will get it in the neck. I also know a number of parents who are in denial about what's happening or how badly they are strughling despite mountains of evidence to prove otherwise and feel they're being picked on when that isn't the case.

 

and you probably also know of cases where social services have fucked up but aren't mentioning those??

 

 

He obviously works for Social Services. It's nice to know that their employees have such a contemptuous and obnoxious attitude toward families they're supposedly in the business of helping. Ironically, it only confirms everything Speak The Truth has said.

 

 

 

I have never worked for Social services just putting across the dealings I have had with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You appear to be stereotypical of the sort of ultra aggressive tracksuit wearing fish wives who end up, along with their hyperactive unruly progeny, being baby sat by the social care system. No wonder the social workers are regarded as being so totalitarian and akin to the Nazis when they have to perpetually spend their working days dealing with foul mouthed guttersnipe types and their unruly urchin children. It must be thoroughly depressing.

 

Someone appears to have swallowed a dictionary and a thesaurus.

I do hope you ensure your absolutions are thorough when you exit the anal passage you have obviously crawled up in order to reference them.

Your opinions appear as being formed by one who has actually worked for the SS, or perhaps by being related to a member of the organisation that treats its 'customers' with the obvious contempt that is shown by those employed to help those in need.

Putting on my shell suit, you are a cock, (phallus, penis, member, dick, knob, willy, prick etc etc etc).

Typical foul mouthed abuse from an indignant local peasant. No doubt you have spent the morning sniffing glue or whatever you people do as a distraction to looking after your own children and this is the resultant intoxicated rant. The public house on your estate will no doubt be open by now and no doubt you are otherwise occupied. I'm sure it's good fortune that your children are able to stay at home and watch Sky and play on the Xbox as you hoover up pints of Carling with your guttersnipe associates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Typical foul mouthed abuse from an indignant local peasant.

 

uh.............

Use of the words "anal" and "cock" is sufficent example of foul mouthed abuse. It really is the type of discourse you would expect to hear whilst utilising a bus stop on one of the sink estates. It would seem that the local peasantry is up in arms about this situation, whilst at the same time still feeding a conveyor belt of their failed parenting into the local care system. Maybe they should just stop procreating rather than complaining about the people they outsource bringing their children up to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. The message being conveyed is quite hideous. It's only the lower orders and their guttersnipe views that would result in the views expressed by Speak The Truth. They are clearly subnormal in their view of the social care system.

 

Even before your later comments this was a pretty clear candidate for "Obvious troll is obvious", but it's worth pointing out that class antagonism does appear to play a large part in the attitudes to social services intervention. A lot of people seem to see child abuse as something that only happens among the 'lower orders' and universally there. Thus any Social Services involvement must be justified - until it happens to 'someone like us', in which case it's the greatest outrage ever. You see this in a lot of the reaction to the Named Person scheme in Scotland (whether it is a good thing or not). Some of the opposition seems to be based on indignation that nice middle-class people should be included, rather than on a consideration of the best way to help all children.

 

In other words they see child protection as basically being there to confirm their sense of social superiority . It seems an odd thing to base your self-worth on, but I suppose some people don't have much else to put forward.

 

Of course child abuse can take place in all social classes and most parents, of whatever background, desperately want to the best for their children.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when it comes to complaining about social services it's not a surprise when people have their kids taken from then they will feel aggrieved. I've had first hand dealings with them and the decision to take kids arent made lightly they have to investigate allegations in today's blame and compo culture if they miss something they will get it in the neck. I also know a number of parents who are in denial about what's happening or how badly they are strughling despite mountains of evidence to prove otherwise and feel they're being picked on when that isn't the case.

 

But let's just say (hypothetically) you are or were involved in law enforcement. Then the only cases you would get involved in would be those where children were being taken into care involuntarily or where there was criminality involved in other ways. You wouldn't see those cases where intervention stopped short of the children going into care, or parents had been persuaded that it would be best if their child went into care (perhaps because of implied threats), or where the evidence was too weak for the care proceedings to go ahead, or where the parents didn't resist the process because they thought it would harm their case.

 

In other words you would only see the most extreme situations where the evidence was strongest and you would be hearing only one side of the evidence. But that doesn't mean that all the other cases will be as well-based.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be a PAG meeting with someone from Isle of Man Social Services answering the questions from the public.

 

The nearest we got was Steve Rodan, now President of Tynwald and was chair of some committee looking into this sort of stuff. He came out with his typical narrow viewed words of wisdom, that whatever they are doing, if it saves just one life it is worth it. It sounded grand and Steve was smug as fuck as he purred the words out. Allan Norman paused, and took a couple of sentences to blow sanctimonious Steve's assertion right out of the water.

 

 

 

I don't think Rodan agrees with 'if it saves just one life it is worth it' he was trying to see how you argue against it!

 

Allan Norman's reply was basically that the biggest threat to children was deaths in car accidents but would banning children from cars be a proportionate measure to protect children?

 

Of course not and you can only go so far in trying to protect children in their homes.

 

In other words having a free society comes with some risk. The concern about Isle of Man social services is that they are overstepping the mark in the way they conduct their investigations.

 

I.e. in trying to solve one problem they are creating another!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Social Services involvement must be justified - until it happens to 'someone like us', in which case it's the greatest outrage ever. .

 

I would say that's exactly what it looks like is going on here. People who view themselves as being better than the 'usual' scummer who they believe ends up with kids who are subject to social services involvement stamping their feet and saying how awful it is that they are being treated like this. Probably middle class alcy's who don't think they have a problem, or crap parents who fail to admit they're crap parents because they can hold down a job and think other people think they're normal. They clearly think that their different to all the other people who are crap parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the latest instalment in the DHSC's efforts to suppress the truth and cover up criminal practices.

 

Hi, All --

Please refer to the first email at the bottom of this chain.

Malcolm Couch, CEO of DHSC, has written to Tam asking that she retract our covering letter for the Tynwald Ordered Investigation and that we apologize for it and its contents.
The email that I refer to is her, very well written, reply.

Stay strong.
This Investigation and the bad practice and lack of safeguarding on the part of the DCF that led to it will not be allowed to go quietly away.

All my best,
Marcia*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reply.

 

On 28/10/2016 17:25, 3s wrote:

Malcolm has requested that I issue an apology for the covering letter and withdraw it. this is my reply.


From:
3s

Sent:
28 October 2016 17:23

To:
Couch, Malcolm

Cc:

Subject:
Your email re- covering letter for Inquiry

Dear Malcolm,

First of all, I must apologise for not replying sooner - the combination of being amid a house move and having my router knocked out in the recent storm means my internet access has been very limited over the past 7-10 days and in fact I saw your email for the first time only on Wednesday (26th).

However, I cannot agree that 3S should apologise for and withdraw the letter.

Firstly, it was the covering letter for the Inquiry and was submitted with the evidence for the Inquiry and therefore cannot be "withdrawn" - nor should it be.

The letter was factual and supported by evidence - ie the evidence submitted with it to the Inquiry - and it made important points which we felt needed stressing - not least that these are not "just" 10 cases, they represent many more.

I wrote the letter myself and am slightly surprised by your request that the letter is withdrawn since there is nothing in it that should have come as a surprise to you or to anyone in the Department. You have all been aware of the problems and the complaints over a long period of time - and indeed you have known that there was to be a Tynwald ordered investigation and that these issues would be raised, and looked into.

The whole department has also had a myriad of opportunities to respond to complaints and take the concerns raised in the covering letter seriously - I myself stressed to you how serious the issues were, when we met. And I feel that had anybody at the department listened, and looked into what was happening, the need for an investigation would have been averted.

(More than one person/family has told me that they even brought their files of evidence to meetings they had with you, and that you would not look at it. So, since you have, apparently, even seen individuals carrying their files of evidence, you should not be surprised that this evidence exists or that the patterns within it are worrying - nor indeed that they want to talk to someone about it.)

Who shared the letter on social media I have no idea. But your issue seems to be with the letter itself, and for that I cannot apologise - I stand by it, it said what needed saying and it was truthful and substantiated by evidence.

Finally, I'm afraid that I feel that your insistence that the letter is withdrawn and apologised for seems unreasonable in the following circumstances: I have asked you to withdraw and apologise for an email about Marcia Brabbs which - unlike our covering letter - was NOT truthful and was entirely unsubstantiated - was in fact contradicted by evidence. When you have stated that you feel no need to apologise for a false and defamatory email I am truly at a loss to understand why you feel that 3S should apologise for a letter that was reasoned, factual and, as I have stated, more than backed up by evidence.

So I am sorry, but I must respectfully differ with you on this matter. I stand by the letter. I stand by the evidence we submitted and I believe it was perfectly right and proper to send in a covering letter with the material for investigation.

Tamasin


  • Like 1
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...