To further recap: (This Is Part 4)

Mrs C was, with Plaskitt MP, did whatever they could to destroy Happen Fostercare or “Happiness” as referred to in the Spectator article, here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3061606/after-baby-p-the-crisis-in-child-foster-care.thtml#comments

that was published in December 2008 – not that the Spectator did anything else other than meet a total stranger on a train station platform and report her side of the facts. Was “Tom, Dick or Harriett” asked their opinion – well no, of course because Mary Wakefield seemingly, according to some reports, has a bit of a fixation with big black folders and no journalistic talents, or at least she (Mary Wakefield) was just lazy and incompetent.

Well, that was December 2008 – Mrs C (her of the big black folder) was by this stage desperate to find a new audience – indeed anyone who might listen to here.

Let us return however to four years earlier………..

Plaskitt MP in the autumn of 2004 delivered his now infamous and shameful speech to the House of Commons and a certain David Cameron (then a relatively unknown MP) intervened on behalf of his constituents, the Directors of Happen Fostercare. It was a shameful exploitation by Plaskitt of Parliamentary privilege, naming and shaming all and sundry but at the same time protecting the identity of his “constituent” who in later press articles and in the CSCI Internal Review Report was identified as Mrs C.

Hansard Plaskitt 15 Sept 2004

csci-report-part1 AND

csci-report-part2 AND

csci-report-part3

The Plaskitt (utterly shameful and cowardly) speech was widely reported in the press, without of course, any opportunity for any of the individuals or Happen Fostercare having an opportunity to comment.  Odd, since Mrs C complains she is not afforded any voice! Hmmmmm.

Identifying Mrs C is not difficult – by her MPs admission she is both a constituent and a foster carer – she therefore lives in Warwick/Leamington Spa. She was previously a foster carer with Happen Fostercare and (among other avatars) has been named in the press as Mrs C or Ms A. So reader, and Wilt knows many of you already know, it does not take a lot to know who this individual is, especially among those numerous agencies she frequently contacts i.e. GSCC, Ofsted etc., etc. Yet she complains of having been “outed” by others, harassed even – Mmmmmmm.

The outcome of the press reports (added to the circulation of the flawed/unlawful Judy Downey report widely circulated by Mrs C) was for Happen Fostercare to experience extreme prejudice and a shying away by local authorities to use their services. Why? Quite simply local authorities aim to minimise their liability and cognisant of that fact both Mrs C and Dork Plaskitt MP intended that be the outcome – in short to destroy Happen Fostercare in order to recover or retain the status of Mrs C. What status you ask – well that is a good question?  All will be revealed.

Happen Fostercare (“Happiness” in Spectator speak) had by the time of the Plaskitt debacle complained of the unfair treatment afforded them by the Regulator – like being investigated but not interviewed and the Regulator (in the form of its predecessor the NCSC) providing Mrs C with a report (which Happen knew nothing about) and consequently were blissfully ignorant of. Yes Ms Downey, Dork of the profession, which was you – we wonder if she is GSCC Registered?

Happen Fostercare (and again I reiterate it is not the agency which exists today) had a hell of a time. Mrs C and basket Case Plaskitt (not much longer to be an MP with a curious eating disorder based on his claims for food on his expenses) created absolute fucking havoc at huge public expense, which even at that time was a dead issue. Now, my mate “Paul”, looked on in horror at all this – his heart sank when seeing the plight of the Henderson’s and could not believe that this Mrs C and her TWAT MP could be allowed to get away with such fucking nonsense. The impact on the individuals was devastating, and that of course is what was intended – Mrs C was going to destroy them, and at the same time illustrate to the world that she was little Ms perfect victimised by others. That is what she would like people to believe. Read on – get the facts.

This was now late 2004/early 2005. “Paul” continued to have occasional work from Happen Fostercare on various pieces of work – just to remind you “Paul” acted (at least tried to) as a mediator between Mrs C and Happen Fostercare in 2002. Instead Mrs C “copped out” and ran away, she hoped, to another IFA (Independent Fostering Agency) but in fact ended up with a Midlands local authority. By this time Mrs C had an acceptance of responsibility for failure to disclose relevant facts from Northamptonshire County Council, and they gave her a written apology (in 2002). So what the fuck was the issue remaining in 2004? What possessed this DORK to continue with her complaints?

Madness? That is the widely – and I mean widely – held view (ask any at the GSCC, Ofsted, DH etc., etc.) among most.  Evilness? That has a minority view but it is equally compelling. Probably it is a mixture of the two. Either way, she is persistent as evidenced by her reports (with the assistance of oddball Plaskitt) to the press and complaints up to this day in 2010 – 8 years later. And there is no sign of her giving up.

Anyway, in late 2004 our man “Paul” who is an excellent social worker was appointed, by competitive interview, as the Independent Chairman of both a local authority Adoption Panel and Fostering Panel – it transpired to be the local authority who had registered Mrs C in 2002 after she departed Happen Fostercare. Realising this connection, “Paul” gave a voluntary written declaration of a potential conflict of interest and resolved that he would always stand down as Chairman whenever an agenda item concerning Mrs C appeared. That seems very reasonable to me.

Up until this time “Paul” had no contact with Mrs C (since early 2002) and quite frankly had no desire to do so given his knowledge of her persistent harassment of Happen Fostercare, with the help of basket Case Plaskitt MP. She had hitherto and up until that point not regarded “Paul” as either relevant or even circumstantial to her case against Happen Fostercare, so “peripheral” and inconsequential was his involvement. He was not mentioned by Plaskitt in his disgraceful speech to the House of Commons, nor had she complained about “Paul.” So, nothing to worry about then? Wrong, big time!

Within weeks the (mad/evil –depending on your perspective) Mrs C had made a complaint to the GSCC of “Paul’s” appointment as Independent Chairman! Why, well that is of little mystery as facts further unfold but at the time Paul was not aware of the complaint and as matters transpired it withered away and amounted to nothing, until Mrs C found the energy to make a more substantial complaint in the following year (and in the interim attempted to convince a host of well known agencies – in some cases convincingly – to believe “Paul” was a “fraud”, dishonest, unprofessional, falsified his credentials/experience and was in cahoots with Happen Fostercare to destroy her as a foster carer. This being odd as “Paul” did everything possible to distance himself from this evil bastard.

However, just before the SECOND complaint to the GSCC “Paul” started to receive “threatening” unprovoked fax and letters from Mrs C, and these are published here:

Mrs C Letters 2005

These are not redacted in any way other than to exclude the address of the parties and their names – unlike Mrs C we prefer to protect identities and respect private life. Mrs C however identifies herself – make of her attitude and approach as you will. We think it rather revealing of her attitude. And as Winston Churchill illustrated, attitude is a small thing with potential for big consequences, and rather telling of the individual.

Now “Paul” was utterly baffled – he was accused of making disingenuous comments about Mrs C and circulating them. Mrs C was WRONG on both accounts as will be illustrated later in the ongoing release of data via this blog.

This is now 2005 – Mrs C (or as she truly can be identified in her letters to “Paul”) is reliably determined to be mother earth and sole adjudicator on matters well beyond her competence to even sniff at, let alone judge. Not that different from the GSCC who will feature greatly in the next chapter of this very sad story – and the GSCC now regard Mrs C (somewhat belatedly) as “vexatious”. Now, where have I heard that description before? Was it the CSCI – YES! Perhaps SMBC – YES! Possibly everyone else in private – YES! Is it true – YES! And did a certain gentleman from the GSCC say “Do not quote me but she [Mrs C] is vexatious” – YES!

We will leave it here for now, Part 5 of Mrs C and the GSCC to follow shortly. In it you will find “Paul’s” reply to Mrs C –and it pulled no punches.

Wilt (in collaboration with numerous others)

Earlier last evening Wilt was contacted by an old friend. He said, “I cannot believe it – now the woman thinks I have some lost or stolen file!” The woman of course is Mrs C – a woman of some infamy on these pages and, it seems, most of the world (including the Milk Marketing Board).

Grasping a large cider I ask (knowing the answer) what fucking file? “The Happen File” he states. And what has that got to do with you, I ask? “Fuck all, I last saw it in 2002 but it seems to have been stolen or gone missing” says my friend? See earlier article here: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2010/02/information-commissioner/

Taking a (large) gulp of cider I ask was it stolen by you, do you have it? A firm “NO” was the reply. And so what is the problem, I ask?

It emerged that a certain PC from Banbury was investigating a lost (stolen) file from the offices of the former Happen Foster Care offices in the same town – Happen Fostercare is now run by Fostering Solutions. They had received an inspection visit from Ofsted wanting to inspect a file on Mrs C but, alas, it could not be found. It is understood that Mrs C had asked Ofsted to investigate – why is unclear. Why Ofsted, even more unclear. Purpose – Gawd knows!

Anyway, continuing:

In response to friend, so you aint got the file? “Never seen it since 2002” was the reply. Any reason you would want it? “Mmmmm, possibly for evidence, but no not really, no” Does XXXXXXX have it? “I do not think so”

OK so what is the problem? “Well, now you ask that, nothing really – I just get pissed off time and time again being harassed by this woman [Mrs C] – what is it with here?”

OK, I say to my friend, (another very large gulp of cider) take it from me she is either mad or evil – I am aware of your view on that. Either way the woman has few places to go and just let her get on with it. The woman has no merit, competence or sympathy with any agency I know, and as you know I have contacts with most.

“Is she on your website (www.regulatorwatch.co.uk) daily as she is mine.” Asks the friend. Oh yes, thrice daily mate (my turn to get a round) and it seems she has a new toy – a Smart Phone. The T-Mobile network if I recollect correctly – I clocked her immediately. My mate replied “so did I”

And so the saga goes on – we suggest Mrs C gets a life (even a job) other than sitting at her (various) pc’s and laptops and newly discovered smart phone – did you know using looked after young people pc’s is not vey professional?  Bad girl!

Anyway we commend our good friend for keeping us alert and wish him god fortune in his new ventures as set out in his press release on his website. Good luck mate.

Meantime, another pint of your best cider – Mmmmmm very refreshing, oh and a pint of ………….

How comes I get most of the rounds of drinks? I need to reflect. Seems the Salty Dog is giving away clues to my wealth – I keep telling the bastard I am poor but says otherwise to my drinking mates. Salty Dog could become best mates with the RSPCA lost dogs home – not really, she would be better off with alcoholics anonymous!

So, we have Mrs C complaining to the ICO, Osted and now her former agency about a file being missing – we thought she was anxious to have every file (except those in her house and in the passion of others she has passed them to e.g. the press) file otherwise cleansed. Very confusing! It does however explain why fostering solutions were all over Regulator Watch like a rash a few weeks ago.

Wilt

We know that the GSCC is under special measures – remarkable!

We know they have a new seemingly progressive and (for once) CEO (no reflection on Snell who was interim – and besides he was never fooled by Mrs C or Plaskitt) in the form of Penny Thompson. And of course the DH is undertaking a major review (hopefully not just a makeover) of the GSCC functions and various other organisations as set out in this Community Care article: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/08/113757/gscc-new-chief-will-be-stymied-by-failure-to-publish-review.htm

So, why the delay in reconfiguring?

Wilt takes an alternative view – as well as DH general failings, it is itself “stymied” by a pending election, well advanced (not advertised) MASSIVE central and local government budget cuts and (if the Conservatives win) the significant possibility that the GSCC would no longer exist (along with hundreds of other quango.

In some form or other the GSCC functions will exist post election (no going back on regulation on social workers – and that is absolutely right) but Wilt believes it will be merged with other regulators and/or consumed within the (Royal – according to Balls) Social Work College – the options are vast in terms of mergers and reductions of quango.

Government change or not (and if you believe otherwise you must think Gordon Brown a God) either political party have a major, major public service bill to cut and given they are under special measures one tends to think the GSCC might not stand out as an icon of such immense competence that affords them preferential treatment, even if any of the political parties understood or really prioritised social work as a major priority. This is not so much as “stymied” as proffered but rather where in the hell does this embarrassing and failed GSCC fit within priorities and budgets – AND (I can hear those nice DH people think) where the fuck do we place the GSCC, especially if (bless him) David Cameron comes to power?

It will not, I think be in the bin – that could never happen. No political party could risk having no regulation of social work – nor should they as it is needed, but please not the GSCC. But what will take its place?

Well, who knows really – there are probably greater minds already attending to this problem (probably more coherent with the Conservatives) and have plans in mind, and those nice people at the DH will be wise to the upcoming need for a significant overhaul of regulation – this time however it will not be simply moving one person from that post to a similar post elsewhere, it will mean redundancy. And it will not be small scale. Arte where exactly will the GSCC and other social care quango come in all of this?

One hopes Penny Johnson (new CEO of the GSCC) has an alternative career plan – either that or she is wiser than Wilt.

We will see.

Wilt

As per my earlier posting (see here: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2010/02/bit-of-a-spat/) the lawyers have struck back, and rightly so.

Half Time Score:-

BASW 0 – 2 GSCC

See the Community Care Magazine article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/08/113752/barristers-reject-basw-claim-of-ignorance-among-free-lawyers.htm

Personally, if I needed help I would get a lawyer – even if I needed to re-mortgage my house. Although having some notable success in some cases, BASW on the whole have not yet established themselves as fully up to speed and despite their “Professional Indemnity Insurance” scheme I have yet to hear of a case involving the GSCC where that has been used – it was notably lacking (and criticised) in the case of dear Lisa Arthurworrey.

Perhaps Wilt could act as a referee in this game? Mmmmmmmm.

And, as if BASW needs any further bad publicity, one of its own (former) officers needed some help in a Conduct case – we wonder if they had a Full Time BASW Advice and Mediation Officer to help them before being delivered a three year admonishment?

See the article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/08/113750/ex-basw-officer-reprimanded-for-giving-misleading-evidence.htm

Oooooooops!

Final Score:-

BASW 0 – 1 Care Council for Wales

You could not make it up, really!  And here I am meant to be keeping the regulators in check – Wilt slaps his own face saying “stupid boy.”

Unless the GSCC and others continue to be stupid I am going to complain that they ruining my burgeoning second career as a web journalist – well OK bog basic blogger!  One has to say BASW are at risk of being relegated to “Dork” status unless they improve their game.

BASW have this article here: http://basw.tumblr.com/post/352488674/basw-online-exclusive-most-social-workers-choose-not Does not say anything about their success or failure rate, nor the criticism of BASW by the Care Standards Tribunal (CST – Lisa Arthurworrey) or indeed overall the number of social workers reinstated by the same Tribunal.

However having five full time officers will no doubt improve the service and, somewhat VERY belatedly address the concerns they themselves identify in the Conduct process.

However take their new look web page as pure advertising for now (you can only use the service if a member – after a period of time) to help increase membership of BASW. I will judge them on their performance in actual practice. To date that has been very mixed.

Wilt

Four little piggy’s appear to be going to Court – although they think they have parliamentary privilege and should not be going to court. Three Labour MPs and one Conservative Peer could well end up in jail, and we hope they do. However it may not stop with these four as one is still under investigation and as Guido points out there may yet be further actions/complaints, see here:  http://order-order.com/2010/02/05/the-defendants/

It makes one wonder about my own MP, who apart from being a smarmy git and utterly incompetent, has that look of guilt about them – what you been up to piggy, we wonder?

Obviously the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/?source=refresh will, and quite rightly, have a field day with this latest development – it is thanks to them that the sleaze of this Government and MPs & Peers in general came to light (together with their sources).

It is as one commentator on Guido’s blog observed, one way of solving the second homes issue – some MPs may end up in accommodation with shared shower facilities proved by Her Majesty, at her pleasure! That to me seems like poetic justice, as in those who shagged/shafted the public will end up with a surprise dick in their nether regions – ouch! Well perhaps not “ouch” if they are that way inclined!

I agree with Guido – this aint the end and it aint going away. I suspect there will be further complaints to the police. Possibly I might just make one myself as my little piggy MP seemed to consume huge amounts of food at £400 per month and (it is claimed) employed a cleaner – we just wonder whether they did. And of course it raises the question, was such cleaner (if they exist) an illegal immigrant?

And, don’t get me started on Plaskitt MP – another utter fraud and tragic case that illustrates a travesty of representation of high morals. You know, James Plaskitt MP who in report after report and yet more report castigated fraudulent people who claimed falsely off the State (as in Benefit Claimants) and who himself lauded the introduction of lie detector software to catch them out. We think the same lie detector equipment should be applied to him and his favourite constituent Mrs C – that is another story. However Plaskitt was of course caught out fiddling too, albeit in a very limited manner.  There is more to his expenses claims that meets the eye.

Of course we Brits believe in justice and fair play, and these piggy’s are yet to be convicted – one wonders who among the British public will be chosen as the jury and if they stand by those principles of our culture. The defence that the UK public cannot or should not call these upstanding gentlemen to account is the most idiotic legal defence I have ever heard and good on the CPS to throw that back to them to prove the point – that will really impress the public at large and a jury in particular.

It does however go to the heart of the problem – we MPs are not accountable to the plebs who put their trust in us to represent their interests and MPs are immune from criminal charges as I am superior to the law and the mass voters – hello Saddam Hussein raised from the grave (albeit with an odd crick in his neck).

Payback time, long awaited and justified.

Wilt

Wilt has had an interesting letter (actually an email) from the information commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint about access to personal data via the website www.regulatorwatch.co.uk.

As you should be aware, the Information Commissioner enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The DPA has eight principles of ‘good information handling’. These give people specific rights in relation to their personal information and put certain obligations on those organisations that are responsible for processing it.

Under section 42 of the DPA an individual can ask the Commissioner to conduct an ‘assessment’, that is, give a view as to whether it is likely or unlikely that an organisation has complied with the DPA in the situation that has been described to us. We are treating this complaint as a request for assessment.

If we consider it is unlikely that an organisation has complied with the DPA our aim is to ensure that the organisation understands its obligations and takes any steps necessary to help ensure compliance with the principles either in that particular case or in the future.

It appears there is a posting on www.regulatorwatch.co.uk entitled “Hansard stuff and Mrs C” dated 13 November 2009. Reference is made in the posting to “Happen Files” as a source material. Our complainant believes this refers to confidential files in relation to an organisation called Happen Fostercare Ltd. Among other things, the posting states:-

“But you will need password access to those. Very revealing indeed, we know. Apply to Wilt for password”.

This statement indicates that the files in question are not available to anyone and there may be some sort of vetting process via the moderator of the site before a password to access the relevant information is provided. However, the situation and procedure regarding access to these files is not entirely clear.

The Seventh Data Protection Principle states that:-

“Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data”.

I do not yet have enough information to assess whether www.regulatorwatch.co.uk is likely to have complied with the requirements of the Seventh Data Protection Principle in this case. I would, therefore, be grateful if you could answer the following questions so I can make my assessment:

1.      Please confirm whether or not the “Happen Files” are confidential files in relation to Happen Fostercare Ltd.

2.      If so, please explain why www.regulatorwatch.co.uk has access to this information and what criteria individuals wanting to access the information need to satisfy in order to obtain a password.

I would appreciate it if you could provide a reply within 28 days of the date of this email. If you are unable to do so, please let me know when you will be in a position to provide it. If you need any more information about this matter, please let me know.

Finally you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework.  Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong.  It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

When you reply to this letter, I would be grateful if you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it.  I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure.  You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Casework & Advice Officer

Tel: 01625 545 758.

Dear XXXXXXXXXXX

Well Mr Commissioner here is your answer.

First, we did notice you taking a look at Regulator Watch, and we hoped you enjoyed it.

We wonder who may have complained – was it Mrs C or Plaskitt MP who wish the records of Mrs C to be cleansed?  We think you need to examine what exactly Mrs C has put in the public domain herself, supplying file upon file of confidential and personal data to numerous agencies and the media. Indeed misleading and sometimes false data, we would add.

However, that is a matter for you.

Mrs C visits the Blog Regulator Watch three times a day usually – she is obsessed, and that would be putting it mildly.

She complains to her MP, who complains to the House of Commons (who point him to you), to the police who know not who regulator watch is nor it seems cares I am advised as there is nothing unlawful in expressing opinions, and to Ofsted who although frequent visitors to the website are acting beyond their powers – we think the latter need to concentrate on getting their own house in order, especially when it comes to lost files (down the back of filing cabinets) relating to Sharon Shoesmith (of Baby P fame). Of course Mrs C also complains (about the wrong person) to the GSCC who anyway find nothing wrong with the website Regulator Watch and we hate to think who else – Milk Marketing Board possibly?

Hence, you are left with the problem – lucky you!

We hope you liked the website – thousands do judging by traffic reports.

Despite the fact that Regulator Watch is NOT AN ORGANISATION nor is Wilt REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED AS A DATA CONTOLLER I will however indulge you, in public, with an answer to your query.

All data held and/or published on the Regulator Watch website (password protected or not) is already either in the public domain, released under the FOI Act or personal to individuals who have either released it to Regulator Watch and in some instances contained in public court proceedings.  Therefore whoever has access to data (password protected or not) is irrelevant.

The area on the website (password protected) “Happen Files” is a private area and access to which is entirely at my discretion – was that you the other day from Warrington writing to me asking for a password to help with your PhD research? Warrington I think is quite close to the ICO? Naughty boy?

Wilt gets up early in the morning – so do not try to play silly games with him.

“Happen Files” contains nothing which as outlined above is not already public or released under FOI requests or otherwise released from personal files voluntarily by the individuals concerned.

As you were seeking the “Fisher Report” or “Fisher” (as in ex-police officer Dennis Fisher on behalf of Northamptonshire Council) whilst on our website (www.regulatorwatch.co.uk) you will have found nothing relating to it on Regulator Watch. We understand however that your complainant is very desperate to keep this out of the public domain. We wonder why?

Anyway, dear Commissioner, have fun. Best wishes to Mrs C and odd fellow Plaskitt MP – you know that thieving MP soon to become ex MP of his constituency in Warwickshire. Good luck with Mrs C and God bless you – you will needs Gods help with her. But then you already know that, we understand.

Yours sincerely,

Wilt

ps: how is the weather in Warrington and Cheshire – is Opal (TalkTalk) a good package? Personally I use XXXXXX and they are excellent.

What on earth are BASW going on about? See article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/02/113711/basw-attacks-gscc-over-legal-representation-in-conduct-cases.htm

First, not everyone is a BASW member and second I know of several people who found the BASW Advice and Representation service to be very inadequate – to be fair I have read some case matters where BASW have represented social workers and they seem to have done a good job.

Third, let us not forget however that in the case of Lisa Arthurworrey where the Care Standards Tribunal (CST) was highly critical of BASW who the CST lambasted, and observed that Ms Arthurworrey won her CST case in spite of their (BASW) representation.

So BASW, do not forget that you sometimes get it wrong too.

Strangely I tend to agree with the GSCC on this – I must need a drink or something!

Lawyers (pro bono or not) may not necessarily have the specialist knowledge but they can do research – there are few lawyers who have such specialist knowledge, and in my experience some child care solicitors (for example) know a great deal about social work.

People in glass houses should not throw stones – BASW.

Also, BASW are somewhat “come lately” to the criticisms of the GSCC – the previous CEO thought that the regulator was too soft! What a twat! However, in fairness to Hilton Dawson (the current CEO) he is making a far better job of it. A reminder of one of his attacks (and there are several) on the GSCC you can read an older Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/08/26/112437/conduct-basw-lambasts-gscc-over-right-to-fair-hearing.htm

This was previously reported here on Regulator Watch.

Wilt

The Care Standards Tribunal http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/ has also listed several further GSCC appeals.

See the list here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/hearings.htm

There is one VERY familiar name here

Hofstetter v General Social Care Council
Date: 15-18 March 2010
Judges: Judge John Aitken & John Reddish
Specialist Member: Susan Howell
Venue: Care Standards Tribunal, 18 Pocock Street, London SE1 0BW

The above settles the venue, time and membership which the Care Standards Tribunal have spent numerous weeks on devising. Was this an “administrative challenge” or a determination to have the right people in place to ensure a proper analysis of this complex case matter?

However, the date is fixed, the venue known and the Tribunal Members identified – miss it at your peril.

Personally, I think the GSCC are about to get another major bashing.

Other CST appeals:

ND v General Social Care Council
Date: 10 February 2010
Judge: Laurence Bennett
Specialist Members: Jenny Cross & Ray Winn
Venue: Care Standards Tribunal, 18 Pocock Street, London SE1 0BW

AND

Turay v General Social Care Council
Date: 15 February 2010
Judge: Laurence Bennett
Specialist Members: Janice Funnell & Jim Lim
Venue: Care Standards Tribunal, 18 Pocock Street, London SE1 0BW

AND

TR v General Social Care Council
Date: 16 February 2010
Judge: Maureen Roberts
Specialist Members: Susan Last & Chris Wakefield
Venue: Birmingham Magistrates Court, Corporation Street, Birmingham B4 6QA

Fun times……..

Wilt

What does the term “No Sanction” mean to the world at large? It means probably that someone was guilty but that really they they should be spared a serious “sanction.” At least that is what I think, and I suspect most reasonable minded people would think.

Unless of course you are the GSCC (General Social Care Council) who seem to believe that “No Sanction” is equivalent to no finding of misconduct, as set out in their official website notice: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/recently_concluded_hearings/

It says in relation to Mrs Elizabeth De Souza- Oyewole (that is a bit of a mouthful) in a rather sad case matter that there was “no sanction.”  Yet, when you click on the link and actually read the transcript of the GSCC hearing it actually says:

“Persuant to Rule 23(5) of the Rules as the Registrant was found not to have committed misconduct, the case was dismissed and the hearing concluded.”



See the Notice here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/52912541-1D1C-4724-B9C9-118B16CDD120/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONDESOUZAOYEWOLE.pdf



Again Wilt begs forgiveness for his simple minded approach to life (i.e. try to be accurate and balanced/fair) but he is a little baffled. Wilt always thought that a finding of no breach of conduct means in any language “not guilty” and yet the term “no sanction” could/does imply something completely different – or am I being pedantic? I kind of think I am actually being rather sane, actually whereas those utter ferking Dorks at the GSCC have fucked up again – impeccable promised behaviour!

This is actually quite serious – it equates to person A being accused and same person ASSUMED guilty as charged. This is just not simply fuck up but goes to the heart of the problem at the GSCC – they simply cannot understand process or interpret facts and, I am convinced, illustrates that the GSCC (at least elements within) will undertake bloodletting at any cost. They simply want to survive (unlikely) and justify their existence even if it means “not quite” letting on to the meaning of “no sanction”.

These people are dangerous – whether you consider them utter fools or conspiring. Whatever you, reader, may think, or I think, it is probably somewhere in the middle – in other words utter fucking Dorks.

Idiots!

Remember, you heard this first from www.regulatorwatch.co.uk and NOT http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Home/

Wilt

The GSCC are having a moment (or is it a permanent change) of greater transparency in publishing a link, from its home page, to a list of the February 2010 Conduct hearings and then a link onto the details of the allegations.

Excellent! Now all they need to do is:

1. list who the committee members are;




2. how long they have been sitting on these allegations;




3. who made the complaint or notification.

Good progress however, we just hope they keep it up.

The relevant links are:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ (GSCC Front Page)

http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/diary_note_01-02-10.htm (GSCC notification – upcoming hearings)

http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/ (more details on allegations here).

Some interesting cases coming up – see the detailed allegations.

It is important that such details are published (and not to name and shame registrants) but to ensure that there is proper public (as well as press) scrutiny.

Remember the GSCC conduct process is frequently held in closed session with sometimes even Registrants unable to attend to give oral evidence. Whoever designed that process was having a very serious bad hair day and should be scalped – only joking (on the scalping bit).

However, they remain DORKS.

Remember, you heard this first from www.regulatorwatch.co.uk and NOT http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Home/

Wilt