Everyone I know in fact dislikes Ofsted – including me. Mind you “dislike” is a bit emotive and probably not helpful. Possibly the description of Ofsted as “dysfunctional” might be better used – it all starts at the “top” you know, i.e. with its Chairman and CEO. The idea of “piss up “ organisational skills and “brewery” come to mind, but that is possibly facile and juvenile.

Again Ofsted are criticised, here in this article: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/29/113666/edlington-scr-summary-vague-says-deputy-childrens-tsar.htm

Who was it that developed these categories of “inadequate”, “good” etc, etc that Ofsted use? Oh I remember – bless him. Well intentioned mate but a firkin nightmare when placed in the hands of those fools at Ofsted.

Ah well – things can only get better. Any worse and I’m off  on the boat somewhere in the Mediterranean with a glass of Cider in one hand and a G&T in the other.

Talking of boats, my planned trip to Malta now finds the vessel nearing its UK staging post for the “big journey” but has a few more way- points yet to complete and some serious upgrading of onboard kit (and my fitness medical) to be completed before we venture forth to Malta.  Optional crew member list is in the process of being shortlisted.

Wilt

I suppose the lady was lucky not to be a social worker – I suspect none of the Regulators (e.g. the GSCC) would have allowed her to continue to practice. See the BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8486936.stm

Why are there such differences in how Regulators dispose of cases? Quite remarkable really!

Wilt

Here we go again – another utterly stupid (so called) “Conduct” case to be brought of a social workers jokes (and we all have them) about the likes of Gary Glitter. It is the kind of stuff that keeps most social workers both in good mood, grounded in reality and allows a little mirth along the way. Indeed it helps retain some semblance of sanity.

The case is set out here in a Community Care article: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/28/113662/social-worker-faces-misconduct-charge-over-gary-glitter-email.htm

I think I have seen this email myself (about Glitter – the pervert), albeit some years ago and I suspect it had a certain common currency  among most social workers and other professions, but especially overwhelmed, generally overworked and somewhat distressed social workers. It’s that email reading over a cup of coffee first thing in the morning in the office that allows you to keep up the spirits and sometimes, quite frankly the will to live and do the daily business of dealing with the consequences of the likes of Glitter dishes out daily.

OK it might be a little offensive to some, but most reasonable people would look at the email and (albeit they may not admit it) have a quiet laugh – most people I suspect would laugh out loud. It’s all about releasing tension, adding some sugar to that coffee and generally finding a reason to continue in frontline social work – which is a shit hole (sorry for the pun – unintended)  of a place most days.

Now for once this seems not to involve the GSCC in prosecuting this complaint (sic) if that in reality it is what it is – naughty boy, how dare you promulgate that email and inspire images (jokingly) that others might (rightly) conclude that Glitter is a fucking (again excuse the pun) CONVICTED pervert.

This is not a valid complaint – the man (social worker) found the email extremely amusing, and so did I when I viewed the attached image. I chuckled and laughed loudly over my (one sugar please) coffee at 6:00am many moons ago – we business people rarely sleep you know!

What is an absolute travesty (apart from bringing the case at all) is that it relates to actions in the summer of 2008 – yes 2008, you know well over 18 months ago. Why the delay for the Scottish version of the GSCC http://www.sssc.uk.com/ – are they experiencing the kinds of problems the GSCC have faced?

Now usually, to be balanced, the SSSC (http://www.sssc.uk.com/) are much more grounded, and well sensible, and I must admit to being shocked. There is reference in the Community Care article (see link above) to other emails about adoption and same sex couples – what they are is certainly unclear to me but I suspect might be possibly (in reality) less perceived as “oppressive” and more inclined to the (inevitable I think) kind of benign need to keep a healthy perspective on the working day – perhaps not wise or helpful but is this really an issue of conduct for the regulator? Perhaps the Community Care article has used the wrong headline – perhaps it is the other emails that are more offensive?

We will wait with interest whether Community Care have got this “emphasis” wrong or if the SSSC (the sister of the GSCC) have cocked up again.

Wilt

Whereat is Sharon Shoesmith of Baby Peter fame – Wilt thought her case was due back in Court this month, or have I missed something?

I still predict she will win this case against both the employer (Haringey) and especially Ofsted who have miraculous files which first do not exist, then disappear (if that makes sense) and suddenly reappear having been found again behind (as distinct from within) a filing cabinet.

Miraculous what Ofsted can do when they have a boot up their arse.

Wilt

And the GSCC seem to get another case right, albeit somewhat late in the day – the man was convicted in April 2009 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment after admitting sexual abuse of a child, in the United States in 1988/9.

See the Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htm

The GSCC formal Notice is found here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0A5C879C-DD58-460E-8026-64203FCBFCBF/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMCGUIRE.pdf

OK, it only came to light over 20 years later but that still fails to account for the delay since April 2009 – mind you I suppose his absence for the UK was a feature (he was in prison in the US) and he was hardly posing a risk in the interim, at least to UK service users.

So, perhaps on balance, and it must be seen the man had a fair GSCC hearing, perhaps it would be a bit harsh to be critical of the Regulator on this one.

Wilt

It’s good to see BASW are keeping up to date on the issues relating to the GSCC continued failings, see CC article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/25/113636/basw-urges-transparency-on-gsccs-interim-bans.htm

Meanwhile BASW CEO and former MP Hilton Dawson is mixing it with Community Care Readers and Journalists as set out here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2010/01/hilton-dawson-steps-into-cares.html

Good on him – however I still think the prospects of a BASW run (Royal according to idiot Balls) Social Work College is very, very scary, almost as scary as Balls. Megalomania and “don’t run before you can walk” comes to mind when Dawson says BASW’s concerns are simply to do with a creating a “national” college without Big Brother looking over their shoulder – try pulling the other one, Hilton. Mind you – BASW is coming on and has a far better voice than the last couple of decades, and that is down to Hilton Dawson, even if Wilt is uncertain of his tactic.

We do like Mr Dawson however, and we think him well meaning and hard working. I seem to recall reading that their membership has increased significantly – however not me, yet.

To help you keep up to date with social care news: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Home/

Wilt

It could only be Sandwell – the icon of utter failure in local government services who again create confusion within chaos. See the article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/25/113643/sandwell-puts-practice-pilot-on-hold-after-ofsted-blow.htm

An old friend of Wilt once worked in Sandwell and recalled some happy and sad days – latterly mostly sad as he and others simply got out. It was sheer chaos and dangerous – a view which it seems Ofsted now agree with who have rated the authority as “inadequate” in almost everything (child protection/looked after children) it does. Wilt has only had a fleeting connection with the Council and some years previously, but I could have told you for nothing what Ofsted have spent large sums of money on finding out it’s a scary place and utterly dysfunctional.

Others who revealed to Wilt (some inviting him to join in tendering) who considered taking up the project work quickly understood this was a no go area – not because the project is a bad in concept but because it is Sandwell trying to run it. A disaster waiting to happen! Fortunately, it has been put on hold pending the local authority putting their house in order. I knew nothing good would come of it, and had Wilt succumbed to the offer to bid, where would he be now? Out of pocket and waiting for this white elephant never to appear, it seems. What Government fool selected Sandwell, of all places, as a pilot project? Too much cider down in Whitehall, me thinks!

Wilt (looking forward to retirement)

OK, what has happened o Sharon Shoesmith and Haringey?  Did I miss something?

Wilt

There are a further two reported findings of the GSCC, the first regards Daniel Bester (see here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/51285270-EB92-4B00-97D8-C95320890348/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONBESTER.pdf)

Bester is SUSPENDED for 12 months because he failed to report or take any action after he became aware that a colleague was having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old child. Now, I have many times, Wilt is a very simple fellow but does suspension really suffice in this case whereby, although indirectly as far as Bester is concerned, a service user – indeed a child – was being directly harmed.

Does that make sense, I mean stopping at a suspension? Compare it with the case of Herbert Yaweh who was guilty in effect for dishonesty, and a pattern of dishonesty as set out here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/68A243B9-7215-4B7F-A12E-DA2055BEEA38/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONYAWEH.pdf

Yaweh was REMOVED from the register, and I have no quarrel with that as the GSCC maintain he showed little insight and the behaviour (in various forms) was part of a pattern of behaviour, whereas Bester admitted he was wrong, grossly wrong, and it was a one off “offence.”

Now one cannot in one sense go behind the GSCC findings on Bester – the Committee would have had far more details than could be reasonably recorded in their Notice and although Wilt likes to bash the GSCC at any opportunity (thus mimicking/emulating the GSCC approach to Registrants) it does seem in this case to warrant something more than a tabloid response (which the GSCC themselves have been accused of at times – or at least pampering to the tabloids).

Bester, who must be feeling gutted at his poor choice of decision not to disclose relevant facts, might be feeling relieved that he can, after a time of reflection, return to the profession. I for one do not wallow in any sense of shame or distress he may be feeling – assuming the GSCC got it right he must be feeling terrible, although one hopes not as terrible as TWAT he failed to report for sexually abusing anyone, let alone a 14 year old service user. It is him that makes me angry.

No doubt the tabloids will pick up on this news story, but on this occasion I actually think the GSCC got it right – Wilt being long in the tooth and not easily intimidated would not have made the same error in not reporting the abuse – but he reflects, when he was younger, green and finding his way in a complex profession (with then no written rules) he might have made a similar error – Wilt doubts it very much as he is a feisty bastard and knows what is abusive and what is not, but he has to admit, well perhaps he could have made a youthful error. We, even Wilt it is rumoured, to be human, and as an imperfect species we must have the opportunity to learn and change.

So, GSCC well done on this one – Wilt is impressed.

Wilt

You know no sooner do I commend the GSCC but then find another case where they fuck up. It is indicative of the utter mess the GSCC are in – Gawd help us.

This is another REMOVAL of a GSCC imposed Interim Suspension Order, REMOVED sensibly by the Care Standards Tribunal but of course IMPOSED by those nice, idiotic, GSCC  TWATS.

This is the case of Robert Roach aged 66 years – YES SIXTY SIX Years in age. He has effectively retired to all intents and purposes from an unblemished career in social care and acted as a bank worker for Cafcass – big mistake. Cafcass are of course another disaster area, themselves in effect under special measures and thus should enjoy the company of the GSCC.

Roach was involved in a high profile case where (in a Cafcass role) he failed to ensure that a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau or Police National Computer Check) was not completed, although indicated in his report to the Family Proceedings Court that it had. The intended CRB check on a father would not have indicated a problem with him having contact with his children, but when he did (father) killed his two children and himself.

That is serious headline stuff and Wilt has been involved in similar risky assessments for Courts but has ensured, “belt and braces” fashion, that at least the “basics” were in place before concluding the assessment – the basics are the easy stuff, but even Wilt (nor others) can predict the madness of someone such as the father in this case.  We work in a risky business, for Gawd sake and mostly we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong, and sometimes it is just simply not within the reasonable efforts of the best professionals to predict a major catastrophe – one can only imagine Roach suffered enough in his nightmares of “what ifs “ and inevitably the survivor complex of guilt – not that he was guilty, it was the deranged (what else is it other than evil) actions of the father. His children had no choice to live or die. Their mother had no choice but to be deeply bereaved and rightly angry – what is that to do with Roach and his “Conduct” as a professional?

Well the GSCC felt it was relevant, and it is in part inferred by the CST and one can surmise based on hitherto actions of the GSCC intended, as it were , an easy “cull” to satisfy the bloodthirsty tabloids. This is despite the fact that Cafcass did not sack him but Roach then decided enough is enough, I am getting out of here – he was remember by this stage already retired and drawing (or near drawing) his well earned OAP pension. This is an elderly (middle aged by today’s standards – and we hope fit), highly experienced and valued professional. What were the GSCC doing?

Obviously trying to be seen as the upholders of social care standards – not it seems by the standards applied to this case. See it here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1062

I really do wonder about the “moral compass” (as Gordon refers to) and competence of these people at the GSCC. Rather than uphold standards and the confidence in the profession, they seem time and time again (with some exceptions) to simply destroy it – so it can be seen as Mr Terminator in the eyes of fools like Balls and the tabloid press. “Oh look”, says frilly dress “pin up lass” Chairman of the GSCC, “we know how to fuck social workers.” At least I hope that is what she might say, but alas nothing close to it will ever emerge – it’s all “problem, what problem” for that TWAT.

What a firkin mess at the GSCC.

Wilt

There are a further two reported findings of the GSCC, the first regards Daniel Bester (see here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/51285270-EB92-4B00-97D8-C95320890348/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONBESTER.pdf)

Bester is SUSPENDED for 12 months because he failed to report or take any action after he became aware that a colleague was having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old child. Now, I have many times, Wilt is a very simple fellow but does suspension really suffice in this case whereby, although indirectly as far as Bester is concerned, a service user – indeed a child – was being directly harmed.

Does that make sense, I mean stopping at a suspension? Compare it with the case of Herbert Yaweh who was guilty in effect for dishonesty, and a pattern of dishonesty as set out here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/68A243B9-7215-4B7F-A12E-DA2055BEEA38/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONYAWEH.pdf

Yaweh was REMOVED from the register, and I have no quarrel with that as the GSCC maintain he showed little insight and the behaviour (in various forms) was part of a pattern of behaviour, whereas Bester admitted he was wrong, grossly wrong, and it was a one off “offence.”

Now one cannot in one sense go behind the GSCC findings on Bester – the Committee would have had far more details than could be reasonably recorded in their Notice and although Wilt likes to bash the GSCC at any opportunity (thus mimicking/emulating the GSCC approach to Registrants) it does seem in this case to warrant something more than a tabloid response (which the GSCC themselves have been accused of at times – or at least pampering to the tabloids).

Bester, who must be feeling gutted at his poor choice of decision not to disclose relevant facts, might be feeling relieved that he can, after a time of reflection, return to the profession. I for one do not wallow in any sense of shame or distress he may be feeling – assuming the GSCC got it right he must be feeling terrible, although one hopes not as terrible as TWAT he failed to report for sexually abusing anyone, let alone a 14 year old service user. It is him that makes me angry.

No doubt the tabloids will pick up on this news story, but on this occasion I actually think the GSCC got it right – Wilt being long in the tooth and not easily intimidated would not have made the same error in not reporting the abuse – but he reflects, when he was younger, green and finding his way in a complex profession (with then no written rules) he might have made a similar error – Wilt doubts it very much as he is a feisty bastard and knows what is abusive and what is not, but he has to admit, well perhaps he could have made a youthful error. We, even Wilt it is rumoured, to be human, and as an imperfect species we must have the opportunity to learn and change.

So, GSCC well done on this one – Wilt is impressed.

Wilt