Given the pending demise of the GSCC you would be right to be curious as to why, at some unknown expense, they have undertaken a major makeover of their website here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/page/1/Home.html and especially so when there are major budget cuts – it does look better however.

And furthermore the GSCC seem to be wasting our good tax money in making utterly irrational decisions regarding registrants only to have them, very embarrassingly, overturned by the Care Standards Tribunal. There have been several examples again in recent months but take a look at this one, concerning children’s guardian and expert witness Jaswinder Singh Bains. Community Care gave a reasonably good account here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/01/13/116097/gscc-may-have-breached-social-workers-human-rights.htm in an article titled “GSCC may have breached social worker’s human rights.”

“May have” as a term is a bit of a misnomer – this guy had his rights completely overlooked. The competence of these people beggars belief. Whereas the Community Care article gives a flavour, you really should read the CST full finding here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1131

Here are some choice remarks from this excellent tribunal.

“We have asked ourselves whether the Appellant followed a proper process in dealing with his application to renew his registration or whether it was flawed as the Appellant suggested.   Mr Bains applied in the normal way following preliminary enquiries as to what was expected of him and he ticked the relevant boxes.   We believe that, in the absence of any issues arising in the 3 years since his initial registration, he had an entirely reasonable and legitimate expectation that his application would be dealt with in the normal way.”

That much is clear then……………

“In these circumstances, we find it difficult to understand why the Respondent did not draw the conclusion that its inability to produce any evidence to counter these assertions inevitably meant it would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain its argument against renewal of his registration.   It seems to have relied instead upon the inexorability of its own processes.”

Ooooops, things are beginning to fall apart for the respondent case (the GSCC).

“The 2010 Notice of Decision makes it clear that the Registration Committee looked solely at the client letter as evidence of the Appellant’s compliance with the original condition.   This demonstrated the Committee had no understanding that the original condition encompassed an oral explanation, despite the fact that this was information in the possession of the Respondent’s officers.   There is no evidence that the Respondent’s officers told the Committee there had been any discussion about the condition at the time it was imposed and therefore the ‘policy’ was not simply the letter alone.”

Sorry Guv, we overlooked this vital evidence…………..

The term “Dork” is coming to mind. The other term is “utter fucking pillocks.”

“We have concluded that the 2010 Registration Committee was not party to all the relevant facts on which to base a reasoned and reasonable decision.   Therefore we can only conclude that their decision was fundamentally flawed.”

Wilt being a bit thick wonders what is meant by “fundamentally” and “flawed?” Can anyone advise?

“We are troubled by the length of time taken by the Respondent to arrive at a decision in this case.   Mr Bains’ application was dated 3 August 2009 and it took the Respondent until February 2010 to make any progress.   It was still asking him for more information at this point despite its earlier apology for the error in telling him he could not work.   Thereafter it was obliged to issue a further apology for saying it had not got information the Appellant had clearly already sent.   It is undoubtedly true that the Respondent had considerable problems in the initial stages of implementing its new regulatory functions in 2006 that resulted in delay and frustration, which was experienced by Mr Bains at first hand in his initial application – and he was not the only one.   But this is no excuse for the apparently chaotic, inaccurate and slow process followed by the Respondent in 2009.”

The trouble with the CST is they use big words like “no excuse”, “chaotic” and “inaccurate.” Do these mean they do not have a first fucking clue? Mmmmm, Wilt must go back to school.

The following quote has other big words like “abdication of responsibility” and human rights:

“Furthermore, this process appears to have been flawed.   The Respondent said it had no option but to recommend refusal because Mr Bains was guilty of non-compliance and had not responded to their requests for information.   On the basis of that initial error, it continued to pursue a path to refusal and to pass the decision to the Committee with that recommendation.   If it is true that the Respondent has, or had, a policy to refer applications to the Committee with an automatic recommendation for refusal, it would seem a strange practice for a regulatory body to follow.   Such a procedure might appear to amount to an abdication of responsibility and in circumstances where the Committee does not know it has insufficient evidence and does not fully record the evidence it does receive, that lays the Respondent open to the argument that there is potentially a breach of Article 6.”

Fucking mind boggling only this complicated stuff, but I think it means that the GSCC are total morons, both Committee and especially its staff. Mind you Wilt is a simple minded soul despite his Oxbridge education and could be wrong.

Anyway, there is more to come:

“It is arguable that perhaps since 2003 and certainly since 2005, the Appellant has experienced several years of somewhat tortuous processes that have proved beyond his ability to control or to influence despite his best efforts.   Both CAFCASS and the Respondent have placed him under considerable pressure, firstly in respect of criminal allegations that proved to be false and thereafter by CAFCASS’ pursuit of allegations about his working practices, which became the basis for his suitability to be registered as a social worker.   The Respondent, prompted by CAFCASS, then decided to address any lingering doubts by negotiating the terms of a condition on his registration.  On the face of it, unusual though it was, and still is, to require an individual social worker to produce and maintain a confidentiality policy, it ought to have been a relatively straightforward step.   Instead, it resulted 3 years later in a prolonged process of investigation by the Respondent characterised by inadequate record keeping, failures in communication, a lack of knowledge and understanding by its officers and a decision taken by a Committee based on that flawed approach.”

I must apply for a job with the GSCC – it sounds like a good place to work. You can be as stupid as you like, waste time and other people’s money and take the piss out of both the law and the public. And, get paid for it and earn a pension – fucking brilliant. My dearly departed father would be proud of me if he were still alive.

But there are even better things:

“A regulatory body must take a proper evidence based approach to its functions and its decision-making, ensuring that the reasons for the decisions it reaches are entirely transparent.   It also needs to take particular care to exercise its functions in a proportionate, fair and independent manner given the power it has been given to control professional status.   It needs to demonstrate that it has not been unduly swayed by the views or approach of another public body with different functions.   It is a matter of public record that, as an organisation responsible for providing services to the public and to the courts on behalf of children CAFCASS has experienced a number of crises, including a prolonged period of dispute with its self employed Guardians and a failure to command the full respect it might normally be entitled to expect.   This increases the necessity for the Respondent to avoid giving the impression of exacerbating a situation that, in reality, turns out not to have been what it appeared to be at the outset.”

Well, if working at the GSCC does not work out, I suppose Wilt could join CAFCASS – it sounds like an equally fun place to work (sic). The options appear very encouraging – a friend of Wilt has told him about another good place to work, called Ofsted.

However, there is yet more:

“It seems to us appropriate to conclude in these circumstances that none of the Respondent’s processes in this case appeared to be characterised by the necessary fairness or transparency or compliance with natural justice or with Article 6.”

These CST people really are killjoys – their observations imply that those nice people at the GSCC have to do a proper days work and be reasonable in return for their critical role and responsibilities and for their salary/pension. Now how unreasonable is that? And, they want them to be transparent too. What do they want – blood?

“We are very concerned about the Respondent’s belated attempt to produce this further evidence.   This was a matter for the separate Conduct Rules process and once the Respondent closed the file on it, it ceased to be relevant to this appeal or a matter to be pursued against the Appellant.  It was quite properly not put before the Registration Committee, but that did not prevent the Respondent trying to include it in the evidence for this appeal.   Even if that had been an appropriate step to take, the material included a newspaper report of the criminal proceedings in 2005 that gave a wholly misleading impression of the trial and of the Appellant’s conduct.

We received no explanation for its inclusion in the bundle of evidence for this appeal and we were most concerned about the implications of so doing.   It was incomplete and gave a partialised view that was entirely incorrect given the facts.   It is extremely important that those preparing these appeals take the utmost care not to include “evidence” that may ultimately leave the impression that an attempt is being made to sway the tribunal.   In the absence of any explanation, we are at a loss to understand why this material ever appeared and we are unable to find a logical and proportionate reason for so doing.”

Do the above quotes mean the GSCC were being a bit difficult because they realised they had been complete and utter fucking Dorks? Surely not!

Ahem:

“We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that there are no grounds for believing Mr Bains is not suitable to be a social worker and therefore to refuse to renew his registration.   There is every reason to believe that he should be restored to the register without delay given the contents of the glowing testimonials he provided.   We are satisfied that the Appellant has demonstrated all that is required for him to continue to be registered as a social worker and we order accordingly.”

Do these people not learn? “Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest” comes to mind as a swinging knightly sword cuts off the head of these fools.

Prince Wilt (of the blogosphere – social care)

I must say I am rather bemused by all this, and a little sad for Hague and Ffion – was there really a need for this?

See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11156963

Even here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/william-hague-denies-gay-rumours

And here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/william-hague/7975823/William-Hagues-special-advisor-resigns-over-untrue-allegations.html

Plus of course: http://order-order.com/2010/09/01/myers-quits/

All this is very silly and sad.

Who gives a shit if he is gay or not, which he probably is not – of course the real story is about appointments of advisers on the payroll who might have been appointed as a gay lover. Again, we suspect not.

Apparently, and Guido (http://order-order.com/) has been reporting it for days, there have been rumours circulating the internet that Hague and Myers have something unsavoury in their relations. Now this kind of scandal mongering is without any real merit and probably comes down to the likes of the News of the World or its readers, or possibly the Sun -otherwise the tabloid gutter press.

Now I know Wilt et al go on about Elizabeth Calleja, but at least their observations are based on recorded facts, evidenced documents (more yet to come) and opinions of reasonable thinking persons. This kind of smearing is however unforgivable.

How comes Myers resigns and Calleja remains a foster parent – I am fucking bemused and her solicitors will really need to explain this to Salty Dog.

Fucking incredible.

Wilt

No sooner than Wilt gets home and the not very nice people at Simons Muirehead and Burton are threatening Regulator Watch again, on behalf of Elizabeth Calleja.

Salty Dog, extremely well versed in law, having responded to the said solicitors, they remain dissatisfied and demanded, today, again, not via Salty Dog or Pixelmakers but via its hosts, to remove Regulator Watch from the face of the earth, or if not any reference to Elizabeth Calleja.

These bully boy tactics from the Soho gang at Frith Street however failed, initially.

So, what exactly is all this about, you might think – well let me tell you the story.

You see, there is this woman Elizabeth Calleja – she lives in Leamington Spa. She is a foster parent, under arrest and on conditional bail, for alleged stalking and harassment – yes I died say a foster parent. The kind that is meant to look after vulnerable children apparently full time.

Anyway, she and her former MP (James Plaskitt) have a problem. It’s called truth – or at least truth unless they approve of it.  Have you ever read 1984, the novel? Scary stuff, we think.

Elizabeth has pursued a complaint with any authorities/quango you care to mention for eight years – the original complaint may have some merit but eight years later and having been dismissed, officially and unofficially, by any agency or quango you care to mention, she has turned to using the press to pursue her complaints – however even they are seriously questioning the veracity of her arguments.

She has pursued relentlessly several parties since 2002 on a dead issue – an issue so dead as to have run out of date for cremation.

Yet Mrs Calleja carries on attempting, sometime successfully until people realise otherwise, to portray herself as a victim of maladministration, administrative victimisation/abuse, and innocence of the most (angelic) high nature. Regrettably, rather than simply portraying herself as a (could be) innocent foster carer (which actually involves a lot of work) she instead decides, even eight years later, to attempt to drag down others in her wake so as to make herself, somehow, look ‘good’ and pristine.

Goodness, no, Elizabeth is not an evil bastard, eight years later and with a vengeance so deep rooted as to know no bounds. No indeed! Perhaps someone else can explain it.

Anyway, a group of people, some much detested by Elizabeth as simple complaint fodder for her own ends, decide enough is enough and thus by almost by group osmosis create Regulator Watch – a light in the darkness. Here, truth (at least a better and more official version, sometimes very uncomfortable) and simple things like facts can be permitted to emerge. Gawd forbid, the press never permitted that in the case of Calleja, failing more often than not to consult with those Calleja gladly named and shamed.

Not, we emphasise, that Regulator Watch is specifically concerned with the woman – I think the solicitors will not challenge the fact that she is a woman? They do challenge anything that Regulator Watch might say about Calleja, and strangely, Plaskitt – very bizarre as he is not a litigant. Perhaps he is a silent litigant?

Therefore, Calleja attempts again to have anything which she does not agree with expunged from the record in 1984 fashion. In this case her solicitors simply want the whole of Regulator Watch taken offline, permanently.

They succeeded initially, then Regulator Watch was restored but they are now further threatening Webfusion (the hosts) and the designers of Regulator Watch – not that either have any responsibility.

Webusion have taken the sensible position (tot that Wilt agrees with them) of a company and decided again to take down Regulator Watch – Wilt et al have however decided to move to another host, and if necessary keep moving the Blog from host to host until Calleja gives up.

We will not be dictated to about facts and opinions on a broad range of issues, including Calleja. Pixelmakers have been excused, purely to protect their interests. However if you need a great designer, look no further, and Webfusion are excused too – they are however guilty of taking the line of least resistance in an increasingly litigious world.

Of course Calleja will never directly challenge Wilt – the threats of litigation are based on far too shaky grounds. She knows that evidence, and in particular a jury in either civil or legal proceedings, would laugh her out of Court – with considerable costs.

Besides, several police forces have told Calleja there is no case for complaint, as have from their respective positions (scope of responsibility) the Information Commissioner (ICO), GSCC (in respect of the alleged author – Wilt), Ofsted and the former relevant ministers in the various House of Commons debates. So where is the alleged guilt or the remit of any institution to impose the will of Mrs Calleja?

Nowhere to be seen, it appears. Fortunately neither Blair nor Brown were quite able to create the quango ‘The World According to Calleja’ or as otherwise known as ‘TWAC.’

It is unlikely to be created, we suspect.

In the last century we saw the likes of Stalin, Hitler (and cohorts) and some others who simply had a certain agenda and as part of their efforts to control the world insisted upon a certain perverse propaganda. Anyone who disagreed with the conventional thinking and view were simply disposed of either to Siberia or somewhere like Auschwitz – there was no freedom of speech or opinion that was allowed without approval. Is that what Calleja or her supporters want?

Her efforts in the new millennium to ‘cleanse the records’ and limit free speech and opinion has worrying reminisces to an earlier world order in certain parts of the planet.

It is a very slippery slope when you take that route, especially in Leamington Spa.

However much Wilt instructs solicitors and advocates and enjoys their company both professionally and privately, they are sometimes a despicable profession by promoting the defence of total twats or advocating actions which challenge common sense or established conventions. And why do they act as such – you ever met a poor solicitor or advocate?

Wilt is advised that there are some poor solicitors – so no offence to them. There are also some who work hard for little reward to promote the rights of those least able to defend themselves – excluded from that is Calleja. She is, she claims of course, to be a lawyer herself.

So, there are poor solicitors (a minority), some dedicated (irrespective of personal gain) and there are false lawyers. It just goes to show what a broad range of people attempt to exercise the law.

It’s an expensive business, although we recommend Salty Dog who has reasonable rates.

We will be online………

Wilt et al

The GSCC have had another bashing from the Care Standards Tribunal (CST) in this case: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Judgments/j1092/ND%20Final%20Approved%20draft%20_3_.pdf

This is very similar to an earlier case where, in Wilt’s opinion, the GSCC are using the suspension procedure used by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) to cover for delays in their investigation teams. Although the CST have not expressed in that way it is fairly obvious what message they are sending to the GSCC – get your act together.

Community Care reported on the outcome of the GSCC final hearing of its Conduct Committee here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/12/115083/Cocaine-user-allowed-to-remain-on-social-care-register.htm although they appear not have linked it to the CST finding (link above). Community Care appear not to report on CST hearings, or at least not routinely – here at Regulator Watch (http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/) we do.

In essence the CST finding that issuing a suspension whilst investigations were made, in this case, was perverse is supported by the GSCC Conduct Committee who issued the Registrant with a two year admonishment – a low level disposal.

So what was the miraculous change that caused the GSCC at one time to suspend the social worker and then issue an admonishment? Might it be they fucked up again at the PPC?

This social worker was represented (at the CST) by the Celtic Knot law firm based in Birmingham http://www.celticknot.org.uk/ and Allan Norman has a blog here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=Allan%20Norman&blog_id=276

And tweets here: http://twitter.com/CelticKnotTweet

We still think he needs a ‘proper’ hair cut – only joking!

Allan Norman and a former student Registrant was not so lucky in this CST appeal: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Judgments/j1091/sass2%20decision.pdf

This is the first time it seems that a former Registrant has complained that the GSCC did not go through the conduct process and arrive at the process – the man must be on something!

This is a most mind boggling and stupid case to bring before the CST. The arguments for bringing it presented by Norman were very carefully constructed and eloquent but nonetheless, in Wilt’s opinion, utter fucking folly.

This is a must read case – I laughed so much I fell of my chair.

Wilt

Again thanks to Guido, this is an absolute classic: http://order-order.com/2010/08/02/monday-morning-cartoon-5/

The woman, Jacqui Smith, does not have the first fucking clue. I cannot believe this woman has the lack of understanding why she is hated by the public (especially in her former constituency) at large and the audacity to put herself forward as a deputy/vice-chairman of the BBC – is she fucking stupid? Obviously she is!

What a total twat.

Wilt

Wilt rather likes this article by Guido: http://order-order.com/2010/08/02/27006/

As well as first testing out the ‘suggested’ legislation first on MPs (and Lords) it could also be then rolled out in test form to lawyers, judges, GPs/doctors, footballers, rugby players, some foster carers, social workers and especially journalists and police officers, with a smattering of teachers & nurses.

We suspect the suggested legislation might not get past the first phase of the MPs or Lords.

Where do these Dorks come from? Well, done Guido http://order-order.com/

Cheers, (hic)

Wilt

Some People just do not get it, do they? Two young women torture a poor girl, break her nose and afflict burns to her body for – wait for it- allegedly sleeping with a former boyfriend. A woman scorned, huh? Scorn two and you are fucked by the fairer sex – mmmmmmm.

See the Telegraph article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7917772/Women-jailed-for-torturing-friend.html

What is wrong with these people? Absolute twats!

Wilt

Some people continue to believe they are above the law, including Mrs C. See here: http://order-order.com/2010/07/30/lord-chief-justices-rules-mps-to-be-treated-as-common-criminals/

And here: http://order-order.com/2010/07/30/in-the-courts/

These three MPs and single Lord are going to end up in Court and the evidence tested as to the charges of fraud.

Unless of course they make some further appeal and win it – who is paying for these Court cases? I suspect it is the taxpaying public.

The Telegraph states:

“The four men are now expected to take their case to the Supreme Court for a further appeal, meaning any trials, which had been expected to start at Southwark Crown Court in London in November, might now be delayed until next year.”

The BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10814765 and the Telegraph here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7918481/Former-MPs-charged-with-abusing-expenses-will-face-criminal-trials.html

What absolute twats.

Wilt

There is an awful lot of interest on Regulator Watch from hundreds of sources about both the demise of the GSCC and Mrs C – must be all the press releases or otherwise the demonic woman of Leamington Spa is ranting again.

Strangely, a colleague has similar activity on his website. We hope Mrs C is not breaching her bail conditions. He copied me this letter:

“Dear Mr Plod

“Mrs C is at it again – how long did you say she would be locked up for on breach of bail, and does it follow that harassment by others (even unwittingly) can cause their arrest too?

“We have their addresses and personal computer IDs. That is their log on identities. What Silly Billy’s these people are. Should we block them or just let the evidence accumulate?

“Wilt tells me that Mrs C and her toads are on his blog daily, without fail, usually three times a day except Sundays – she seems to be very regular. I will not repeat what Wilt goes on to describe as regular – he is just so rude, albeit correct.

“Do you understand the meaning of ‘Twat’? Personally I prefer a good single malt whisky. I must ask the barman for a ‘Twat.’ Sounds as if it might be interesting. I am game for a new experience.

“Anyway, you are on duty and enough about drinking – any advice please shall be greatly appreciated.”

To set this in context Mrs C was ARRESTED for cyber stalking and harassment on 29^th June 2010 and bailed on conditions for three months not to make contact with (or cause others contact) with certain named individuals, companies and their websites.

Mrs C is a foster parent, so called although you would be hard pressed to find any activity as such as she spends most of her sad life in her former council house scouring the internet for any muck she can use to perpetuate her sad and demonic harassment. Go here to get a good description of Mrs C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

Less than a month, as predicted, the mad twat has breached her bail.

Oh dear………. She has no fucking clue.

What next?

Wilt

Which is worse, a one year suspension or a 5 year admonishment? Does either fit the circumstances applied in each case?

It is difficult to go behind the GSCC Committee on such matters as they are charged with handing down their disposal – albeit subject to potential appeal. See the Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/23/114970/social-worker-banned-for-offering-client-weekend-of-ecstasy.htm

The formal notice of the GSCC findings is here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4DD0DB39-84FE-48C2-8938-42325E89D56A/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONCARNEY.pdf

And here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9E64FE17-F80A-4A86-8F24-7536079B13A5/0/CAHILLNoticeofDecision.pdf

Let us start with the latter case, Cahill.

He takes a service user/client down to the pub, touches up her bum and offers to take her away to Paris for a dirty drug filled weekend. What a fucking Dork of the first order. Cahill is suspended for 12 months as it was essentially a one off incident. It was however probably one of the most serious of acts of professional misconduct – a breach of professional boundaries and of trust in his capacity to hold the service users right to self determination and needs as paramount.

Some might think Cahill was quite lucky to get away with just a year suspended.

In contrast, Carney who admitted the offence of harassment and was convicted as such was subsequently admonished for 5 years by the GSCC. Why 5 years for Gawd sake?

There is no doubt it was a serious offence but it was both confined to a particular set of private circumstances (does not reduce its seriousness) and limited to a small number of events. The GSCC acknowledge he was under extreme personal pressure and again emphasise an otherwise long and successful career in social care, plus it did not involve a service user.

The man admitted his offence and regrets his actions. What then, exactly was the purpose of a 5 year admonishment?

His outcome is far worse (Wilt believes) than the year long suspension by Cahill and whose offence (in professional terms at least) is the worse. Yes Carney got it wrong, yes domestic abuse (emotional in this case it seems) is a no go area and highly serious – but 5 year’s admonishment after he admitted his guilt and dealt with by the Courts. Is that proportionate? What exactly was the GSCC thinking it might achieve?

You see Cahill after a year has, as it were, done his time and moves on – there is no mark against his name on the GSCC Register and, we assume, moves on. No one is any the wiser.

Carney however does not serve his term for 5 years – instead he carries the yoke of his GSCC Registration (a public name of shame board) until 2015. We find this very odd.

Most people will experience some crisis in their life, some several and a few many. Social workers, and others, aim to help people out of crisis and hopefully develop the skills to cope with crisis better (crisis intervention theory). Generally speaking, putting a yoke around their neck (labelling – give a dog a bad name) is not the accepted best method to help achieve better outcomes.

Regrettably the GSCC has confused, yet again, ‘outcomes’ with ‘outputs.’

Pick a number, any number between 0 – 5 and you tell me what seems fitting for Carney.

Now tell me what would you hand down to Mrs C for her harassment?  Not for her a one off or limited harassment of one person over a period of eight years, but together with basket case Dune Boy James Plaskitt (ex MP) harassment  IN FACT of numerous persons who by a process of other investigations are proven innocent of any harm to her/him.   Well, we will find out when it gets to Court, with her big black files.

We think Cahill was very fortunate; Carney dealt a very poorly judged disposal and Mrs C/Plaskitt will discover in all good time the meaning of breaking the law.

Wilt