Quite obviously the GSCC do not learn the errors of their ways. Yet again they make a complete fuck up and cause immense distress to a perfectly competent social worker – the latter are in rather short supply so you would reasonably think the GSCC would be extra cautious, but no they had to get their free lunch sorted and get home in time to watch eastenders.
Utter twats.
This is the case of Sonia West. You can see the sad details of her appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal here:
http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1052
And you know, I was beginning to think all this bad news was behind the GSCC and they were to move on to greater things. No such firkin luck, but nothing surprises Wilt about those fucking fools.
The Appeal was upheld and again the GSCC are shown up as complete idiots. Here are some quotes:
“The Applicant gave six reasons in her appeal form. Namely
“(a) the decision to suspend me was disproportionate.
(b) the GSCC did not demonstrate grounds for making a suspension order.
(c ) I was denied a fair hearing.
(d) the interim order hearing did not follow the rules.
(e) the committee’s justification of their decision was unreasonable.
(f) the committee did not follow the legal assessor’s advice.”
The CST adjudication notes:
“Miss Miszchzanyn was the advocate for the Applicant at the Respondent’s hearing and represented the Applicant before the tribunal. She explained that because of the short period of time between the notification of the hearing and the hearing taking place she attended on the day with her submission and supporting documents to hand in to the committee. These amounted to 32 pages. She handed in the copies when she arrived. She was told before the hearing that the committee would not accept the submission of these documents. She said that in all her experience of appearing at Interim Suspension hearings this was the first time that her submissions and documents had not been accepted by the committee.”
In short she was completely gobsmacked at the utter contempt of the GSCC.
“The parties had assembled at one o’clock. When Miss Miszchzanyn was told that her submissions would not be accepted she then endeavoured to try re-order and re-write what she was going to say to the committee. She said that at approximately two o’clock the clerk to the committee indicated the council’s impatience. Miss Miszchzanyn said she had a sense of being very rushed out of the waiting room and into the hearing. She felt that the panel made it quite clear that the conduct hearing should proceed without any further delay. The Applicant had previously requested an adjournment which had been refused so she did not consider that it was worthwhile to make a further application for an adjournment.”
Even further gobsmacked……..
“At the beginning of the hearing the committee stated through its chairman that “ the committee has considered this late submission (ie the documents from the Applicant) and does not feel that it would actually assist us in our function today, which is to decide whether or not an ISO is necessary for the protection of the members of the public or otherwise in the public interest or indeed in the registrant’s interest. …. I would remind you that this is not a conduct hearing. We are not looking to make any findings of fact. We are merely here to balance the risk of the allegations and the nature of the allegations against protection of the public other public interest and the registrant is interest. We need to restrict our arguments to that endeavour.
` The Applicant considered that the Respondent’s committee were pre- judging the Applicant in that they only looked at the employer’s opinion based on the evidence of two letters. In her view the committee did not have any independent factual evidence from the employer to corroborate its findings. She had brought evidence surrounding the issues and was not allowed to submit it. She drew our attention to the fact that she had referred to the submissions and additional evidence on three occasions to the Committee. On this ground it was Miss Miszchzanyn’s submission that the Applicant had not had a fair hearing.”
Prejudging – us the GSCC? What a thought and no you cannot submit evidence – we
are here to fuck up social workers. What has evidence to do with anything?
“The burden of proof in such a hearing is on the Respondent to show why the Applicant should be subject to an interim suspension order. The Applicant submitted that some of the questions by the Respondents committee implied that they were asking her for her reasons why she should not be suspended and therefore placing the burden of proof on her.”
Go on Mrs, your guilty and prove to us otherwise.
The CST concludes, simply and succinctly:
“As noted above we are allowing the appeal on the grounds that the hearing by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was not fair.”
“Not fair.” Now where have I heard that before?
Now, Wilt is getting on in years and is a bit dim of mind but he seems to recall that
the GSCC have hitherto been warned about unfair hearings and procedures they
adopt on NUMEROUS occasions, or have I imagined that? When will they get it
right, or even get it? Am I wrong to claim these people as complete idiots?
The GSCC are total and utter Dorks of the first order – how do they sleep at night?
Dear God, is it possible please that I only imagine the GSCC exist as it is giving me
complete firkin nightmares regarding what other complete failures they make which
impact on the social care sector, and oh can you arrange for me to win the lottery
tomorrow, please?
Thank you kindly,
Wilt