Another bites the dust. See here:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9480BD86-11B9-4AD9-8A95-24A732DBAF9D/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMsC.pdf

It only took the GSCC 19 months to clear up this case – 5 months less than the usual two year standard even when there is no gathering of evidence required.

Just think how long it takes to conduct an investigation from scratch e.g. a complaint from a service user direct to the GSCC. Five years perhaps? The GSCC are procrastinating over the Haringey staff waiting for the outcome of the Shoesmith case.

And how will things be after the six month review of the Special Measures status of the GSCC? Will things be any better?

Wilt has his doubts.

At least this time the GSCC got this one right, eventually.

Wilt

What is it about the GSCC? OK lets suspend social workers/managers in the Baby P case from the GSCC Register and take time to decide whether there is a case for these workers to answer. These workers were sacked and whilst the GSCC dither, yes dither, about it (because they aint that bright at all) these people are without a salary and cannot work to pay the mortgage.

If it takes on average of two years to process a GSCC complaint to final conclusion, even when all the facts stare them in the face (e.g. a record of conviction) it leaves one to wonder how long it will take on this case.

One suspects if Shoesmith wins her High Court case, which looks very likely to Wilt, I suspect the GSCC will have to very quickly determine the case against these former Haringey staff as a consequence – what evidence will they have to rely on? That from Ofsted? Mmmmmmm. From Haringey, Mmmmmmm? From the GSCC own investigation work – what a joke!

See the article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/11/16/113172/baby-p-social-workers-gscc-yet-to-decide-on-conduct-proceedings.htm

I was wondering what was going on here:

One fellow worker recently had a notice that she was under investigation from the GSCC – I advised ‘do not fret darling, by the time the GSCC get around to dealing with it your teeth will have fallen out and you will be wearing a wig. And they are only aged a healthy 30 -40 something!

One cannot be too anorak about time scales to complete reports/arrive at conclusions on such cases, but there need to be some kind of timeframe to give Registrants some kind of assurance that their case is being dealt with and disposed of, particularly if they are preventing you from earning a livelihood.

Of course Ofsted have hitched themselves to Balls bastard, and the GSCC twats in turn hitched themselves to Ofsted, in terms of Baby Peter. Bad move fella’s, very bad.

Balls, Ofsted and the GSCC will sink into irrelevance as their incompetence becomes bleeding obvious.

Not good for social care when Balls is a recognised bastard (and an MP to boot!), the GSCC is led by an idiot and the GSCC under special measures, because of incompetence.

Wilt thinks community care did rather well here in posing some interesting questions. However vulnerable people, general complainants (some vexatious) and Registrants, do not hold your breath for an efficient investigation or timely outcome at the hands of the GSCC.

Twats!

Wilt

Do not forget to keep in touch with Wilt’s fellow blogger, Guido Fawks. More aggressive than the Telegraph, more insightful than The Times and not very favoured of the Guardian – his unique style inspires Wilt.

Irreverent and shooting from the hip, but based on reasonable research.

Visit his site here: http://order-order.com/

Wilt

Core blimey, what a birthday. Eventful in meeting so many friends but somewhat overshadow by the weather – seeing and clearing up the damage was awful and it did rather take the gloss off an otherwise good booze up, with a nice meal.

Well, there seems nothing of interest in the social care world worth reporting at the moment, so I thought I would let you know.

Anyway, up early for a long trip to a meeting and must get on……

Salty dog got very upset again – the wind frightened the hell out of her (and me) and we cowered under the dining room table. Mrs Wilt got on with securing the garden furniture.

Thank Gawd we decided not to host the party on the boat – major throw up time! Whose idea, anyway, was it to have that boat? Yours says Mrs Wilt. OK, OK don’t get arsy with me I say, I was only asking!

OK, I am a coward – that is what Salty dog owners are expected to be. Anyway off to business – it’s not nice weather still and very dark out there. I know I will be late simply because of the spray on the motorway – ah well, better late than never I say.

If not back by late evening, send out search parties. I may have fallen into a pub en-route!

Wilt (I hope people drive careful in this weather –unlikely hope he thinks).

Yes a free book, and it is not about God!

Go here:

http://www.greateudebate.com/order/

Honest, it is free!

Fill in your details and hay presto, a free book. This site also has some excellent videos including an interview with the ultra-intelligent Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, with the author of the book Dr Lee Rotherham and a rather amusing Jamie Oliveoil (Jamie Oliver) – great stuff.

It’s all sponsored by the taxpayers alliance – nice people.

Wilt

Regulator Watch is 6 months old. What a lovely looking chap.

The site has been accessed in 15 countries but by far the largest in the UK. with over 1700 hits from 550 visitors.

There were a total of 98 cities/towns in the UK with London producing 391 hits followed by Royal Leamington Spa, Birmingham, Swansea and Milton Keynes, Edinburgh and Manchester among the top 10.

There is a definite cluster covering the south, south-east and English midlands. Northern England has a further cluster as does Wales (south) and Scotland (south).

The highest number of hits with 64 was on 23^rd September 2009. Since then visits per day have ranged from 4 through to 31. These figures are however distorted significantly by a visitor from Leamington Spa who will visit up to 7 times a day.

And who contributes – well that is secret of course. There have a number of moderated (edited) entries and a large number of rejections – almost all spam postings. However there is a definite growing number of regular visitors.

Who visits – mostly individuals but also an array of the usual suspects such as the GSCC, the equivalent in Scotland and Wales, Ofsted, Parliament and numerous local authorities.

Obviously the front page with over 2500 visits is visited the most to capture the latest postings, followed by the About page (261), and various postings in the GSCC category – they like reading about themselves, as do others.

There are a total of 404 postings and category groups that that have been clicked on.

The site has been accessed directly (without Google etc) 719 times, via Google 654 times, via referrals from other websites and links in email take up the majority of the other forms of access.

The most common term used in Google search has been regulator watch wilt (or variants on that term).

Over the last 31 days there have been 191 visits from 9 countries with the UK the highest followed by Australia.

We will publish these details shortly – some very curious Google queries and visitors.

Wilt

Part 3

So let us recap.

Mrs C has had a bit of a bad deal and she has had an apology from Northamptonshire who were the key culprit in the withholding important details of a young person who could have posed a sexual risk. Not good.

No actual injury or harm was done, or none reported but alarming all the same.

She could not reconcile her differences with her independent fostering agency, (who were essentially blameless and at worst of limited culpability) despite their offers to find a solution, and Mrs C went and joined another agency. Lucky them!

The complaint to Northamptonshire resulted in an acceptance that they were at fault and apologised. End of story, you would think. She had moved agencies, end of story you would think, sadly no as set out in the CSCI Internal Review Report part 1 as found here:

csci-report-part1

She complained to another local authority and to the newly formed NCSC about Happen Fostercare who undertook a series of complaint investigations, the third of which never involved consultations with the fostering agency but resulted in Mrs C circulating the damming but seriously flawed report as can be illustrated in the next two parts of the CSCI Internal Review Report, see here:

csci-report-part2

And here:

csci-report-part3

Just as a reminder, this report (it is only in three parts to allow it to be uploaded because of its size) was commissioned by David Behan, then CEO of CSCI because of complaints from the Directors of the independent fostering agency, the Henderson’s and because James Plaskitt for Mrs C had raised concerns that (I remind you an unlawful and flawed) the earlier third stage complaint  report had not been acted upon – and Plaskitt raised the matter in a House of Commons debate, see here:

Hansard Plaskitt 15 Sept 2004

The third stage report (by Judy Downey) was unlawful because the CSCI had used the wrong procedures and had effectively acted beyond its powers, it was ultra virus. It was flawed because it was entirely one sided and the author consulted no one other than Mr & Mrs C. Her style of investigation and the scope of the work undertaken was criticised severely by the CSCI Internal Review Report which Mrs C and Plaskitt to this day reject, and still complain about as in a second House of Commons debate only just recently, see here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091021/halltext/91021h0010.htm#09102129000505

Now not wishing to do a Judy Downey trick, Wilt will point out that the CSCI Internal Review Report did come in for some criticism from Community Care, with the help of Mrs C and Plaskitt. You can find that here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/05/24/104573/Fostering-Investigation-MP-attacks-CSCI39s-handling-of-foster-carers39-child-protection.htm

When reading it, do not forget to read the response from CSCI, who essentially rejected the criticisms.

What the CSCI also pointed out was that if Plaskitt and Mrs C had a problem with the CSCI Internal Report , they could make a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman which Plaskitt as an MP could authorise. As quoted by Community care by CSCI:

“We believe that the report does not contain serious inaccuracies, although inevitably there will be points that are open to interpretation and personal opinion. James Plaskitt and other interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on a draft copy.

As a result of their contributions, the report was amended where this was clearly required. We have had detailed discussions over a considerable period of time with the foster carer and have repeatedly advised her to refer any claim of maladministration on our part to the parliamentary ombudsman, via her MP, but she has chosen not to do so.”

“We believe the references made in the report to the performance of Happen Fostercare during the period in question are accurate, as evidenced in the inspection reports.”

And why have they never done this? Might it be because the Ombudsman would find no fault with the CSCI Internal Review Report – it is after all a forensic piece of work that reports facts. Is it a fear of Plaskitt and Mrs C that the Ombudsman would endorse those facts – and what is it about those facts that Plaskitt and Mrs C fear?

After all, facts are facts – especially when based on Mrs C’s mammoth correspondence file, held now by numerous agencies because she has supplied it to them, although we understand in edited form to the press.

Another factor of course is that if the Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint of Mrs C (aided and abetted by Plaskitt) then in effect their concerns would be killed stone dead, which is what they should be. End of the road.

Plaskitt and Mrs C want the whole matter opened up again, that anything that does not fit with their way of seeing the world expunged (especially the CSCI Internal Report) and to prevent others (including Wilt) from commenting, whilst Mrs C and Plaskitt remain free to engage the press and publish their half truths and untruths.

Personally, I vote for utter transparency and that is why Regulator Watch is here – of course if you do not like it then do not visit, in the same way I prefer not to watch certain TV programmes, read certain press or listen to certain radio shows.

Fortunately there will be no reopening of an investigation, to expunging of data and no involvement of Ofsted or anyone else. It is, in Monty Python fashion, a dead parrot that has gone to its maker, as politely but very persistently explained to Plaskitt in the Hansard record here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091021/halltext/91021h0010.htm#09102129000505

Every agency is just fed up of Plaskitt and Mrs C. What on earth is her problem? Please, please I hear people say, go to the Ombudsman so that he/she can give them a dose of reality – just because she or Plaskitt do not like the CSCI Report does not mean it is untruthful or misleading.

Sometimes bare facts act like a mirror into your soul and you have to realise, oh yes I am vexatious, yes I do have an obsession and yes what people say (mostly not to their face) in private is true.

If Plaskitt and Mrs C want to hear what people really say, then join in the debate here on Regulator Watch rather than just lurking and stalking – Mrs C up to five times daily, even on her new internet connection, unless of course she has moved to Milton Keynes. If however they do not want it in their face – well simply do not lurk and stalk. Simple, I hear the Mearat say!

There is much, much more to follow on this debacle that Wilt cannot believe – the impact on the individuals involved is immense, usually through incompetence on the parts of the NCSC, CSCI and GSCC (more on their part in this sorry story later). On incompetence, the CSCI outcome of the Internal Review Report was that it accepted full responsibility for creating, what Wilt will describe, as a fucking nightmare scenario. David Behan, CEO of CSCI at the time, wrote a long apologetic letter to numerous parties. It effectively said that the NCSC and CSCI had, in this matter, served no one’s interests. He apologised to the numerous parties and staff, even to Plaskitt and Mrs C. See letter here:

(Copy to foloow)

So to recap –Mrs C had now had two apologies. That must solve the issue. Um, no regrettably for some it was no end to Mrs C’s desire for blood and rolling heads from the block. For those some unfortunates, it involved the GSCC, you know, those careful, intelligent and proficient people who help promote public confidence in social work (Wilt vomits violently). It also involved several police forces and the saviour of social work, Ofsted – Wilt after vomiting falls on the floor in uncontrollable laughter.

However to conclude matters on this phase it might be of interest, especially to Mrs C to note that before Happen Fostercare was sold, as a strong going concern, with excellent Inspection Reports and the Henderson’s remained ‘fit persons’ (it was sold for £0,000,000) that the CSCI paid a out of Court settlement of (£00,000). Now unless Wilt has got it wrong somewhere, do government agencies usually pass on thousands of pounds without good reason, or do they pay the Henderson’s a good whack of dosh for harm done? And the Henderson’s, how are they doing? Well, rather well actually and regular visitors and friends of Regulator Watch, together with Paul of course.

Part 4 of Mrs C and the GSCC to follow shortly, and then even more scary stories to haunt the reasonable thinking person. Paul and others (otherwise et al) have collaborated with Wilt in this production and the next several phases of publication. Readers have not the first clue what will come out. Mrs C and Plaskitt will be experiencing flatulence (possibly wet underwear) whilst the GSCC will, not unusually, be shitting bricks when visiting Regulator Watch.

Wilt (in collaboration with Paul et al)

OK Wilt has them Birthday things too and that takes place tommorrow. Mrs Wilt is allowing him an extra pint of cider. She is so generous. Talking of birthdays, Regulator Watch will be 6 months old tomorrow – ooooooh look at him, so sweet and innocent as if butter would not melt in his mouth. Mmmmmmmm.

No bobbing on a boat or trips to salty dog North Wales beach this weekend – just a qiet, reflective weekend.

So fellows join Wilt at the Masons Arms – you know where I mean, for a celebration. Drinks are on me.

Nothing too bad so far………….

How about everyone else?

Wilt

Part 1 of the sorry tale can be found here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/07/mrs-c-and-the-gscc/

TO CONTINUE:

In April 2002 the then NCSC (National Care Standards Commission) came into existence and on day two of its establishment as a registration body ‘Mrs C’ began to complain to them about ‘Happen Fostercare.’ This is in addition to the complaints made to Northamptonshire and the new fostering agency (local authority) she joined. Mrs C would contest that she complained to the latter, but to ‘Paul’ it seemed quite obvious that it was a complaint, certainly the meeting he attended to support Happen Fostercare with the local authority felt very much like a complaint meeting.

So by this stage there are at least three ongoing complaints and certainly by May/June of 2002 the NCSC were investigating, not aware of the other complaints (or at least not initially aware). That must set alarm bells ringing for any reasonable thinking person, me thinks. And that is what Paul was thinking. Likewise he recognised the seriousness of the allegations but as events turned out Paul reports that Northamptonshire accepted responsibility for basic piss poor practice in not supplying a foster carer with the appropriate background information on the child, which related to suspected but not proven sexual predator activity in relation to vulnerable children. Not good, one might say.

Just to recap the NCSC grew out of the Care Standards Act 2000 which in part was based on the north Wales child abuse inquiry known as the Whitehouse Report, Lost in Care

Also from that Act grew the GSCC and SCIE. Eventually the NCSC became the CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) which lost its child care regulatory functions to Ofsted – those functions being registration and inspection of various children’s services provisions such as fostering, adoption, residential care, day care etc., etc.

CSCI no longer exists – described by many commentators as the ‘end of an error’ as distinct from the end of era. It was headed up by the former SSI (Social Services Inspectorate) chief Denise Platt, or as others referred to her as Pratt! As an SSI inspector Denise seemed, to Wilt at least, quite grounded and sensible, but in terms of the NCSC and CSCI she was a complete disaster.

However, back to Mrs C and the GSCC debacle. The GSCC element comes much later in this story of sorrow, mishap, utter incompetence and a failure to grasp the nettle until too late. I reiterate these events as reported precede the current management of Happen Fostercare.

The newly formed NCSC (April 2002) took up the cudgel on behalf of Mrs C. They made a unannounced visit to Happen Fostercare based on, what transpired, a misinformed understanding of their powers and duties in relation to complaints from, as in this case a foster carer, Mrs C. The NCSC never had the power to investigate a complaint against a registered body (and by which time Happen Fostercare was not anyway yet registered) – that duty lay with the fostering agency under the then Regulations and the NCSC had a duty under its inspection regime and separate Regulations and Standards to ‘monitor’ the handling of a complaint. If they (NCSC) felt that Happen Fostercare did not handle it appropriately or if there remained concerns about practice and compliance with standards, then that could be addressed in a inspection of the agency, with any consequential action following which could range from making ‘recommendations’, setting out statutory ‘requirements’ or at worst seeking the de-registration (or as in this case not registering) the agency.

In effect their further actions were ultra virus – exceeding their powers.

Effectively what took place was the conduct of a complaint investigation (which was in effect unlawful, as they had no power or remit) and confused matters further by calling it an unannounced inspection – thus confusing ‘complaint investigation’ and ‘inspection.’ It was an utter firkin mess, to say the least.

To be fair to the ‘inspectors’ (who Paul also met and corresponded with) were somewhat lacking policy and procedural or informed managerial guidance – Paul himself did not pick up on it either, as none possibly would have done at the time, that the NCSC were outside of their remit, powers or authority.

Definitely not good news for the NCSC or, as it transpired several others least of all Happen Fostercare or Paul, but others also. Mrs C can claim many casualties in her quest for fame and being the claim of ‘worst victim’ of the 20^th/21^st Century. Things get much worse, really, honestly.

As matters transpired the (unlawful) complaint investigation found no fault with Happen Fostercare – they were not to blame for the piss poor practice of Northamptonshire who bravely took it on the chin that they were at fault, through poor social work practice.

And let’s be clear here, Happen Fostercare had actually commissioned an independent complaint investigator (Paul) via the Fostering Network (with whom he was ‘registered’ as an external consultant) to investigate and Mrs C had elected instead to ‘jump ship’ and join another agency rather than address the issues, via independent facilitation (of Paul), with Happen Fostercare and, hopefully, find a resolution.

Now to be fair to Mrs C, Happen Fostercare handled her initial complaint badly – that much Happen Fostercare admit. But the subsequent events do not fit with any persons (perhaps other than Mrs C and her MP) concept of proportionality or simple sense of humanity.

There followed NCSC investigation of complaint Part 1, with Part 1a, Part 2 and Part 3 all of which were in fact, unlawful as the NCSC had no powers to investigate, let alone report. Eventually, the part three investigation hit the national newspapers, Community Care (in various parts) and in Parliament – yes Parliament, courtesy of Mrs Cs MP, the odd fellow with a dubious allowance claims record, James Plaskitt.

The part three (unlawful) complaint investigation was undertaken without any discussion with, knowledge of or consultation on its remit or content with Happen Fostercare – it was simply done and then published.. The fist Happen knew about it was when calls started to be made about press reports and concerns raised by faxed copies of the third stage report received by local authorities and others – sent with glee by Mrs C.

In years subsequent a CSCI (the successor agency of the NCSC) published a report. Here is part 1 to begin with:

Click here for Part One

Part two and three of that report to follow, soon.

Part three of the story will also follow soon, and then we can get onto the GSCC proper – among others. We will also reveal in full the itentities of the significant participants.

Scary stuff.

Wilt (in collaboration with Paul)