The NSPCC has come in for a bashing – well deserved and long awaited.

What exactly, these days do the NSPCC do or indeed know (first hand) about child protection? Fiddly shit it seems to me – and it seems to Community Care Magazine readers in this article: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/15/113571/social-workers-hit-back-at-nspcc-over-skills-gap-claim.htm

The NSPC will take your dosh but, in the estimation of the profession overall (and Community Care magazine readers in particular), the public will get little back in terms of prevention of child abuse – you know STOPT. FUL STOP as they relentlessly advertise. And what exactly, in terms of action on the ground, do the NSPCC know or do about child protection? Very little in fact, albeit  they may have historically and indeed they have now and again (and possibly now) have a few second line projects which they recharge to local authorities, at very expensive rates.

Lest not us forget Victoria Climbe whose tragic death they were quick to criticise the local authorities and others before, oooooops, they realised they too had failed to protect when referred to them – seems they were too busy having a Xmas party. See the article here: http://www.deabirkett.com/pages/journalism_film/journalism/it_needs_to_be_stopped.htm by Dea Berkett.

Just think, if all of those millions of pounds held and misspent by the NSPPCC in advertising and putting out a false impression of what they do were actually spent on employing social workers on the frontline – a significant contribution that might be.

But no, the Dorks at the NSPCC instead they sit in ivory towers explaining to us how it should be done – plonkers!  What do they know what we do not? Twats!

The NSPCC will feature further in future articles here on Regulator Watch in, for example, how they breach confidential data to Mrs C (NSPCC admit this much) but blame it on an administrator! Yeah, go on blame the nameless poor administrator. He/she can hack it, Mr Cuell (I think that is how you spell the CEO’s name).

We have some interesting correspondence fom the NSPCC to reveal – Gawd help them.

In the meantime reader, take it from Wilt, the NSPCC are a waste of space and as about as useful in preventing child abuse as a BBC weather forecast!

Working with dysfunctional families in a “family support” context is run of the mill everyday work – there comes a point, sometimes, when you up the anti and go for care/child protection proceedings and most social worker know this – to coin a very old phrase, intervention is sometimes about “preventing the cycle of deprivation……” Some families will just never make it and their children suffer and go on, and on and on –generation after generation – to be equally neglecting. So, no nonsense – act decisively ignoring the obvious “oh it’s not their fault, bless them” thinking and “perhaps if we ignore it” attitude in the vain hope that things might improve – it won’t improve, go away or and it is inconsequential whether or not it is the parents fault.

But then, what does Wilt know after 30 + years of practice? A lot more than the NSPCC, for sure, but sadly Wilt is not as well (financially) rewarded.

Wilt

And so BASW (British Association of Social Workers), having thrown out the baby from the pram, have decided again to pick up the bat and ball and play with their friends (or are they competitors) in the development of the Social Work College (Royal according to bollocks Ed Ferkin Balls).

See the Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/15/113561/basw-to-join-national-college-group-after-all.htm

Well, now isn’t that nice – children playing nicely whilst attempting to overthrow the other in some vain attempt to create BASW II in its wake.

The College (Royal or otherwise) will rely on social workers signing up to it, unless of course it is made mandatory – how exactly do you require social workers to sign up unless it is mandatory, at their cost?

Gawd help us however if BASW have any operational involvement – they are as administratively competent as a donkey with flatulence – e.g. farting all kinds of nasty rubbish all over the place.

What has BASW done for you, of late? Its (expenses paid) alcohol consuming  ex Scot Chief Exec was not well known for “standing up” either for social work, or generally standing up at conferences, at least without a alcohol beverage in his hand!  His standing call was twofold: “Where is my next drink”, “how do I get out of here”, “where is my next conference” and “where is my expenses cheque?”

Well, at least Hilton Dawson appears more sober and intent. Regrettably however he has a HUGE job on his hands – we suggests he starts with the fools at his Birmingham outpost (BASW Office) by sacking a few, lowering their membership fee and providing the effective voice for social work BASW has, ever, never delivered.

I hope t5he new College will deliver – however I suspect not, despite my greatest hopes. Sadly BASW returning to the “game” will probably serve few – not tour profession, service users or community service. The fact is, BASW is a hopeless sad case, but if Hilton Dawson can prove me wrong I for one will eat my words.

Wilt

I have always wondered, and I remain baffled, as to why on the one hand the Courts and the like such as the Care Standards Tribunal always publish the names of the Judge, magistrate or tribunal member, whereas the GSCC do not!

Is that odd, or is it just me? Why are GSCC Committee Members, charged with upholding confidence in the social care profession and determining the future of Registrants, not named either in adjudications or the (usually) press – usually as some have recently been named in the press (and some here on Regulator Watch).

If you are in public office – well, put simply, you are public! So what is the issue? Is there something to hide? Something to protect – possibly? Or is it just simply another example of GSCC general dishonesty, efforts to remain unaccountable and to try to obscure and obfuscate who and what they do, for a living – you know like to avoid accountability?

Well, a mate of Wilt is about to find out via a FOI application…………………

Now that could take numerous months (as distinct from the usual 28 days) to determine – so do not hold your breath.

In the interim here is a list of published Committee Members: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Committee+Members/

Wilt

Meanwhile some other GSCC news:

See the case of Stephen Dent as reported in Community Care Magazine: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/14/113552/social-worker-dragged-boy-with-autism-across-floor.htm

Note that the GSCC relied upon a conviction in 2009 – hence no work for the GSCC. It still seems to me to be a bit harsh – a five year admonishment after a blemish free 30 year career! Well I suppose the GSCC need to get their pound of flesh.

You can find the GSCC formal notice here:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CFDED30D-7EAD-4CB7-8BC8-42911408F925/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONDENT.pdf

And in another case the former Assistant Director Douglas Adams of Barnsley Council, having been sacked by that Council, is to face a hearing of the GSCC. Now we wonder how they might get on – will they have learned their lessons?

See the Community Care Magazine report here:  http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/14/113546/childrens-chief-told-colleague-to-have-an-abortion.htm

The GSCC formal notice is here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2B144A5C-A7FC-40D1-9BEC-3881D5DB2CD9/0/CONDUCTHEARINGADAMS.pdf

With regard to other upcoming hearings go here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/

AND in terms of notices of concluded hearings try here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/recently_concluded_hearings/

AND here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/hearings_archive/ which is their so called archive.

Wilt

We have heard that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  are about to issue a press statement………. Should be interesting!

Wilt

I have always wondered, and I remain baffled, as to why on the one hand the Courts and the like such as the Care Standards Tribunal always publish the names of the Judge, magistrate or tribunal member, whereas the GSCC do not!

Is that odd, or is it just me? Why are GSCC Committee Members, charged with upholding confidence in the social care profession and determining the future of Registrants, not named either in adjudications or the (usually) press – usually as some have recently been named in the press (and some here on Regulator Watch).

If you are in public office – well, put simply, you are public! So what is the issue? Is there something to hide? Something to protect – possibly? Or is it just simply another example of GSCC general dishonesty, efforts to remain unaccountable and to try to obscure and obfuscate who and what they do, for a living – you know like to avoid accountability?

Well, a mate of Wilt is about to find out via a FOI application…………………

Now that could take numerous months (as distinct from the usual 28 days) to determine – so do not hold your breath.

In the interim here is a list of published Committee Members: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Committee+Members/

Wilt

In this latest episode of how the GSCC make a complete balls of things you can discover the depth of incompetence, laziness and ineptitude demonstrated by the Regulator. Read on only if you want a good laugh at their expense whilst again, in usual scary fashion, trying to destroy another social work career.

These people (GSCC) need culling, soon.

When was the last time you so a press release on the GSCC website front page that explains that they got things badly wrong? See: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/

When they were put under special measures – yep and had little option.

When their Chief Executive was suspended and subsequently sacked? Yes they did then too.

When criticised by the Employment tribunal – yep, but that was very defensive and incompetent.

When they totally messed up over Lisa Arthurworrey – yep, but that too was rather defensive.

Generally those nice people at the GSCC hope that the facts never get made known to the wider public, in the long and now growing list of complete bollocks they generally make on issues of conduct, and or addressing complex issues relating to Registration of social care workers.

At one time they argued, “…………..we are a young organisation and learning…….” Mmmmmmmmm! Yeah, sure!

Now these nice GSCC people get it right most of the time, to be fair, but usually only because others have done the work for them and supplied the facts to them – like employers or the Courts.

Simple, no effort other than checking out that the matter has been reasonably dealt with (a no brainer with the Courts) by the referrer e.g. the former employer, AND that misconduct as distinct from capability issues have ACTUALLY taken place AND that action such as a Suspension Order is timely and absolutely necessary. Now you would think if the Registrant had left the Country that the decision to Suspend might have a bearing on the meaning of necessity i.e. why suspend someone outside of their jurisdiction.

It seems to me quite simple, even for the most simple minded of GSCC officers, Committee Members and legal officers.

This is the case of Evan Philip Morkel-Clemens who is South African of German decent (by his mother’s family) who was qualified and EVENTUALLY first Registered and then suspended as a qualified Social Worker by the GSCC.

EVENTUALLY, in this instance, means that Morkel-Clemens was Registered by the GSCC almost 12 months after he applied. Yes, 12 months – albeit he had a recognised qualification from South Africa. In the Interim 12 months his employer West Berkshire (i.e. Newbury) employed him first as a social work assistant and later (before Registration – thus unlawfully) as a social worker in a FRONTLINE service area which he never intended to be working in – he had no experience of child protection – his background being in education settings, counselling of young people and family support.

The Care Standards (First Tier) Tribunal (http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/ ) have dealt thoroughly firstly with the GSCC but also with West Berkshire Council (http://www.westberks.gov.uk/) who were BOTH utterly incompetent in dealing with the case of Mr Morkel-Clemens.

The case matter is set out in forensic detail here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1058

Forensic is not a term however one could apply to the GSCC OFFICERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS or LEGAL ADVISORS. Forensic is an unknown term at the GSCC as it requires a modicum of intelligence, usually a large degree of analysis and investigation (e.g. work) and something called care, professionalism and integrity. You know, those things the GSCC aim to uphold in others. Yeah!

Well, this is what the Care Standards Tribunal found:

“Having carefully considered the papers and the written arguments submitted, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Respondent Council [GSCC] and by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Council in this case was wholly unfair to the Applicant and that decision of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was unreasonable and not supported by any compelling evidence that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest for the Applicant’s registration to be suspended pending a decision by the Conduct Committee in relation to a formal allegation that the Applicant was guilty of misconduct.”

After referencing various parts of the Rules governing the GSCC the Care Standards Tribunal remarked:

“The Tribunal was not satisfied that, in this case, the Council properly followed the procedure set out in the Rules.”

And the Tribunal went on to explain why:

“Much of the material placed before the Respondent Council by West Berkshire Council did not amount to a complaint within the meaning of the Rules.  There was much material designed to establish that the Applicant was a poor performer and worthy of dismissal but little to establish that he was guilty of misconduct. It does not appear that any attempt was made to isolate “a specific allegation or allegations of misconduct”.  The mass of material was simply amalgamated with the Applicant’s registration file and handed on.”

Furthermore:

“Little or no analysis of the case against the Applicant appears to have been undertaken prior to the hearing before the Preliminary Proceedings Committee.  The material presented by West Berkshire Council was apparently accepted without further investigation or clarification.”

“Little or no analysis…… “Now that is a surprise, NOT. It requires something those nice people at the GSCC find difficult –work. Where have we heard all this before?

The Care Standards were not holding back, they added in this long transcript:

“The document purporting to provide details of the allegations upon which the application to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was based was hopelessly defective.  It was merely a slightly modified transcription of the document prepared by West Berkshire Council as a “list of concerns” about the Applicant’s abilities and repeatedly used by that Council when considering the Applicant’s performance.  This was never intended to be a detailed list of allegations of misconduct. In its modified form the document was a list of very general allegations of misconduct. Nothing in it could properly be regarded as “specific”.

“Hopelessly defective……….” I like that one! Why be specific – just feel the width one can hear the GSCC people saying!

The Care Standards continues:

“The document purporting to be a “statement setting out why the registration of the registrant should be suspended” was similarly deficient.  It contained no details and relied upon potentially confusing cross-references to other documents.  The seriousness of the allegations was referred to but, since those allegations had not been specifically identified, that reference lacked meaning. The “most serious” allegation was said to relate “to lack of skills in assessing risk and responding in a timely manner”.  However, the documents incorporated by reference contained no specific allegation of failure by the Applicant to assess a risk and/or to respond to it.  Recipients of the document would have had to guess to which of the various matters referred to in the papers this allegation related.  No evidence relating to the likelihood of any further incidents of harm to service users or others, occurring in the period before the final disposal of the complaint, was specifically identified in the document. There was a submission to the effect that “the allegation in question, if proved, would demonstrate misconduct of a serious nature such that public protection would be compromised”.  Since “the allegation in question” was not identified, this submission was meaningless.  It was further submitted that “the registrant’s actions have led to a breakdown of trust”.  This was neither evidence nor a legitimate submission since the relevant actions of the Applicant and the identity of those who might have lost trust in him remained unspecified.  It amounted to little more than a vague assertion that the Applicant had been properly and fairly dismissed by his employer.”

“Meaningless………..”, “vague assertion…………..” are not or should not be terms associated with a Regulator. What were the GSCC doing for Gawd sake? But it does not end there:

“Later in the document purporting to be a statement setting out why the registration of the registrant should be suspended it was noted that the Applicant might be currently living in Switzerland. No attempt was made to confront the proposition that no conceivable need for the protection of members of the public could arise if the Applicant, who has attained normal retirement age, was out of the jurisdiction and was not working or attempting to work as a social worker. It was simply submitted that there was “a real likelihood of repetition” (of unspecified bad and/or dangerous behaviour) because the Applicant would be “free to return to practise in this country” if not suspended. It was also said that the West Berkshire Council would no longer be able “to act as a safeguard” since they had dismissed the Applicant.  The absurdity of the latter proposition was apparently not recognised by the author of the document.  The Applicant only had dealings, as a social worker, with members of the public in England between February 2007 and November 2008 because West Berkshire Council appointed him, probably improperly and illegally, to a social work post and confirmed that appointment, notwithstanding that the Applicant was not, as they knew, registered as a social worker at the material time.”

The author of the GSCC report was “absurd.” Is that what the CST said – yes. Oooooooooooops! That is a new adjective to add to the catalogue of descriptions of the GSCC staff – I just love it!

And yet there is more:

“The Respondent Council [GSCC] placed before the Preliminary Proceedings Committee a voluminous, unedited bundle of documents, many of which were duplicates and others of which had no relevance to the matter in hand. This placed a burden upon the Committee which they might reasonably have regarded as intolerable. More importantly, it placed the Applicant in an intolerable position. He had no reasonable prospect of being able to determine, in advance, the documents to which attention would be given and those which would be set aside as irrelevant. He was thus unfairly hampered in the preparation of his case.  The relevant documents should have been extracted from the material supplied by West Berkshire and properly presented both to the Committee and to the Applicant in a coherent form.”

See what I mean by lazy? Believe me this is fairly typical of the GSCC.

The Care Standards Tribunal adds:

“Any accused person faced with general allegations can only respond with general denials, which will inevitably appear unconvincing.  This is obviously unfair.”

And when, exactly, were the GSCC last known to have INTENDED to act with fairness? Never – in my long examination of their work. Wilt will let you know if that changes.

Is it intentional or just stupidity and laziness – in reality probably equal measures of all three, I suspect. There are some not very nice people at the GSCC as well as stupid ones – so beware. Being lazy seems just par for the course.

In this rather helpful adjudication the Care Standards Tribunal refine their observations further (and should act as good advice for Registrants and as a marker for the GSCC) as follows:

“The absence of a clear statement of the specific allegations relied upon or to be relied upon was particularly unfortunate in this case because the Applicant was, and is, aggrieved by the apparent shift of the case against him from one involving lack of capability to one involving allegations of misconduct.”

They explain:

“The potentially useful references, by the Presenting Officer, to the alleged breaches of the Code of Practice during the hearing highlighted the complete lack of specificity which ran throughout this case.  Mr Grant recited nine provisions of the Code which he suggested that the Applicant had breached.  However, he did not specify when and in what circumstances those breaches were alleged to have occurred. For example, Mr Grant read out paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Practice, which requires social workers to “meet relevant standards of practice and working in a lawful, safe and effective way”.  He then commented that “genuine concerns” had been “raised about [the Applicant’s] ability to meet relevant standards”.  Mr Grant thus completely missed the opportunity to specify each occasion upon which it was, or was going to be, alleged that the Applicant failed to work in a “lawful, safe and effective way”.  Similarly, Mr Grant read out the provision of the Code of Practice (paragraph 6.2) relating to the maintenance of clear and accurate records.  He then commented that “there have been concerns raised about the quality of core assessments … and about reports generally” but failed to identify any specific core assessment or any other report prepared by the Applicant which was alleged to lack clarity or to be inaccurate.  In any event, it was too late for this task to be undertaken during the hearing.  The identification of specific faults should have been undertaken before the hearing and properly communicated in writing to the Committee and to the Applicant.”

And:

“The Committee’s reasons, given orally by the Chairman, reflected the unsatisfactory nature of the papers placed before the Committee and the unsatisfactory nature of the hearing, including the inability of the Applicant to address the relevant issues. The references to “the allegations concerning lack of knowledge and understanding of procedures, lack of skills in assessing risk, poor time management and lack of ownership of cases” and the further references to the lack of “evidence of change” suggest that the Committee followed the Presenting Officer’s invitation to pay attention to the opinions expressed by the Applicant’s managers as to the Applicant’s general incompetence.  They also suggest that the Committee did not identify or isolate the specific allegations of misconduct that they might have found in the papers.  Having failed to identify and/or isolate the allegations, the Committee could not determine the gravity or otherwise of each of them.  The Chairman made no reference to any specific allegation of misconduct on the part of the Applicant.  His reference to the “gravity of the allegations, their nature and seriousness and the period of time over which they occurred” had little or no meaning in the absence of any findings as to precisely what those allegations were.”

And to add insult to injury:

“The Committee’s written reasons for their decision were deficient in that they were merely a recitation of the test to be applied and of the matters to which the Committee is required to have regard. The decision lacked specificity and did not enable the Applicant or the Tribunal to discern any valid reasons for the Applicant’s suspension.”

Their further observation:

“The decision should have contained a concise account of the findings of the Committee as to the specific allegations of misconduct made, or to be made, against the Applicant; a concise account of the findings made by the Committee as to the seriousness or otherwise of each of those allegations and a meaningful summary of the factors considered by the Committee when arriving at the conclusion that it was necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest for the Applicant to be suspended pending investigation of those allegations.”

The tribunal concluded:

“The Respondent’s decision dated 3 August 2009 to make an Interim Suspension Order in respect of Mr Evan Philip Morkel-Clemens for a period of six months shall not have effect.”

So, will the GSCC ever learn? I fear not – there have been too many repeats of the same errors over numerous years. And I add this submission made by the GSCC to the Care Standards Tribunal, as follows:

“……..the Conduct Committee will, in due course, consider the allegations of misconduct and it is not for the Tribunal to usurp their function by making findings of fact now…………”

“Usurp………..” Now, I kind of think that may have upset a few people at the Care Standards Tribunal (CST). So the GSCC do not feel the CST have a role in these matters – all I can say is thank Gawd they do.

The GSCC simply have utter contempt for the law.

As a reminder, find the CST adjudication here:

http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1058

Wilt

It seems the GSCC have a bit of a learning problem – as in they never seem to learn from previous WELL REPORTED ERRORS.

I will remind readers that the GSCC is in UNDER SPECIAL MEASURES due to utter incompetence, and despite the “pin up girl” Chairman of the GSCC assurances, nothing seems to have changed.

I must admit (for the very first time) Community Care Magazine  http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Home/ have beat me to publication of this story of continued very basic failures of applying justice in its now widely regarded incompetent procedures. See the Community Care Magazine article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/14/113547/judge-overturns-draconian-gscc-interim-suspension-order.htm

Usually, Community Care ignore or otherwise overlook such judgements, as imperative as they are to their Stand Up For Social Work Campaign. So, good on them, in reporting this very important item of news – it encourages Wilt.

This case at the First Tier Tribunal (as otherwise known as the Care Standards Tribunal – http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/) concerns a former Hertfordshire County Council Social Worker – Elaine Bradshaw. She was dismissed from Hertfordshire County Council in January 2009 but, importantly, reinstated on appeal.

Immediately Hertfordshire reported Bradshaw to the GSCC but, wait for it, the Regulator failed to act for five months (and by which time Bradshaw found wok in another local authority) and then only to advise the Registrant that she was under investigation.

You would think, would you not, that the GSCC would take immediate action to note the concern, investigate and possibly take further action, or even, dismiss it – but no, the file sits on a desk for five months. This is the timeline:

It was January 2009 that Bradshaw was dismissed and immediately the GSCC (as they persistently encourage employers to do so) were informed by Herts of their action. It was, finally, considered at a Preliminary GSCC Hearing in August 2009 and she, Bradshaw, was suspended. Efficient, not, we think in terms of timescale. And besides which Bradshaw had an appeal outstanding (which she won) against Herts only a month later!  As noted, she won that appeal and had been reinstated, albeit in a different role.

This was to all intents and purposes a “capability issue” and not a “Misconduct” issue, but sadly the GSCC seem not to be able to distinguish between the two. Here are some clips from the transcript of the official findings of the Care Standards Tribunal:

“The power to impose interim suspension orders is draconian. It has the effect of denying the Registrant the ability to work. No findings are made at this stage and whilst the applicant does have the right to a hearing the efficacy of this is seriously affected by the limited nature of the decision making process at this stage.”

“There is no doubt that there is a need to have an interim suspension power. One can envisage numerous circumstances where there is need to impose a suspension to protect the public. Cases of violence, serious breach of trust, mental health issues spring to mind but the categories of such cases are not confined in this way, indeed any case where there is urgent necessity to prevent further or future harm. What all such cases have in common however is the need for speedy and urgent action to protect the public. This is an emergency procedure not an administrative one.”

“In this case the GSCC did not begin to action matters for 5 months. They received information on 21 January but did not begin the process of investigation until 12 June. This is wholly inadequate. If the public were at risk from the Appellant the GSCC’s failure to act upon the information it received for 5 months is totally unacceptable. The irony of this case is that the GSCC are guilty of the very failures that the Appellant has been suspended for, failure to act upon and apply appropriate procedures.”

Note the terms “wholly inadequate” ,  “failure” and “failures” to describe the GSCC’s own conduct – they were indeed guilty of that which they accused the registrant, Bradshaw, which was effectively “capability”, or put in other words INCOMPETENCE. Except of course Bradshaw was never incompetent as she was later re-employed by Hertfordshire CC. It was the latter and in particular the GSCC who were INCOMPETENT.

The GSCC observations continue:

“It does not appear to us that the committee took into account the delay in processing the matter, the fact that the failures were ones of capability in a supervisory capacity or the inherent unlikelihood of the Appellant getting another job in child protection in a supervisory capacity following her dismissal and the pending a GSCC hearing. They also failed to take into account her own offer to undertake not to seek a post in child protection.”

“It is incumbent upon regulators to act in a timely fashion both in terms of suspension and ultimate disposal of hearings.  We have had cause in previous decisions to note with regret the administrative failings of the GSCC in suspension cases (see McCarthy v GSCC [2008] 1391.SW). Suspension should not be used as a means of papering over administrative failings. It seems to us that by August 2009 the GSCC should have been in a position to proceed with a full hearing. They had had seven months to investigate the allegation they had received all the information that they needed from Hertfordshire CC  (we saw a large volume of paperwork). We were told at the hearing that the GSCC were still not ready to proceed to hearing 11 months after receipt of the information.”

Note the reference to “administrative failures” above. This is simply that the officers, managers especially and the GSCC legal advisers in particular are utterly incapable of the most simple of analysis work – how many brain cells does one need to be a GSCC officer? Few it appears! Being a GSCC manager – even less! A GSCC lawyer – off the stupid scale! GSCC Committee Member – typical of a Sun reader!

Gawd help us!

And the Care Standards comment further:

“The case does not revolve around issues that directly impact upon public safety but are at one removed, they relate to issues of capability in a supervisory capacity. It may be that lack of capability hits at the heart of social work competences and may render the Appellant unsuitable to be a social worker. That is the GSCC to determine following a thorough investigation and full fact finding hearing.”

It is not the first time the GSCC have been found wanting on procedure or “Administration.”  It is not the first time the GSCC have been criticised over its lack of timely action – they are under SPECIAL MEASURES. It is not even the first time that a lack of investigation or incompetence and lack of thoroughness has been observed. But what do they say in response:

“A spokesperson for the GSCC said the regulator was currently considering legal advice regarding the appeal and declined to comment further.” (Community Care article – see link above)

Add to that that the GSCC probably also need basic human rights advice, basic education for staff advice and especially GSCC legal officers sacking advice, together with all managers and Committee Members – including the “pin up girl” Chairman.

Wilt’s internal source at the GSCC indicates absolute “Meltdown” at the GSCC offices both in Rugby and London – and people are leaving or plan to leave the GSCC in droves. Such is the sense of job satisfaction and morale among the workforce.

What next? Oh look here is another GSCC fucking cock up as explained by the Care Standards Tribunal – Evan Philip Morkel-Clemens  –V – GSCC. See here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1057

Another article to follow shortly on the latest GSCC fuckup – they just do not learn.

What firkin idiots – I just love the GSCC who never fail to surprise and entertain me, albeit at the expense of poorly treated and respected social care workers – who deserve a lot better.

Wilt

The suggestion, by any MP let alone John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley) , that someone could be in “contempt” of Parliament is an utter fucking joke. Contempt of MPs (particularly Hemming) and of Parliament seems to me to be a Gawd given right after the allowances fiasco, and in relation to Hemming in particular who thinks he knows everything about adoption of children  – yes, you know that MP who argues social workers kidnap children in order to meet government targets.

The very same MP who was escorted from a Birmingham Court by security officers after he attempted to attend a closed family proceedings hearing, with and on behalf of his constituent. What a firkin Dork. The very same millionaire businessman who admits to being a serial womaniser who has had numerous sexual affairs within his marriage – is that contempt, I wonder?

Read the BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8457092.stm

I mean, just look at him. Ladies, is he the man of your dreams? Or even gents for that matter, as I would not wish to be accused of being sexist, homophobic or whatever “ist” it may be to deny him or others a close physical relationship (otherwise known as shagging) with the same gender. Well, Mr Hemming (note it is not “Hemmings” as he once told me) let me tell you a few things about contempt.

Contempt is when you try to bully your way into a courtroom uninvited and without either a right of audience or even the simple right to attend. Contempt is also shagging women with the obvious knowledge of your wife and smirking about it in public and despite your efforts to make the family Courts more “open” and cannot even bother to turn up in Parliament to vote on the Freedom of Information proposals relating to MP’s business (e.g. your allowances).

Contempt is also simply being an MP, at present – or perhaps you have not noticed in your blinkered and self serving perception of who Parliament is meant to serve. You know the people, me and the other millions of UK citizens.

Well, I cannot wait to see what all this fuss is about – no doubt Hemmings Hemming has been up to no good, as usual. What a Dork (First Order with Ribbons and Medals).

What is it about Midlands MPs – mind you he is a Liberal DemoTwat Democrat but there is little wishy washy about this fella, well only after he has shagged his assistant and then he is all limp. Not a little like his brain.

Perhaps he has been shagging Mrs Bercow, or you never know with these people, Mr Bercow. Certainly Mrs Bercow got around a bit in the past, getting drunk and fucking anything on two legs (rumours of four legged beasts are malicious) and the Speakers how to shag a debutante booklet was actually, he says, not of his hand.  Are these observations contempt of Parliament?  I hope so.

Did you know you can get hauled up before Parliament and be prosecuted for such things? Not that I am worried, at all – what is that smell? Ooooooops, change of underwear needed.

Well, at least I will not be on my own, eh Guido? Hello, Guido? Now where has he gone? Ah well.

Wilt

OK, what is it about this chap? Obviously he is obsessed with being naked and seemingly is prepared to spend the rest of his life in prison (naked of course). See the Telegraph article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6977441/Naked-rambler-faces-life-in-prison.html

I must admit a smile comes across my face thinking of him standing in Court, naked as the day he was born, and defending himself. The face of the judge and other court officials must be a picture to behold, let alone the image of Mr Gough!  Well, we all have our cross to bear but I am at a loss to understand the necessity of this cause, particularly in this weather and in Scotland too – brrrrrrrrrrrr.

What a Silly Billy, as a well known former politician, would say. Personally, I just think he is a Dork and rather than wasting money on him in prison, post him to a remote Scottish uninhabited island – without clothes.

I wonder what he does to keep warm. Perhaps jerking off! Gawd!

Wilt