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

There are now 10 listed GSCC hearings for January 2010 as set out here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/

This we believe is the largest list ever for a single month and clearly the GSCC TWATS having had a rocket fired up their rear ends have pulled out their fingers and got on with some real work – not a lot mind you as that would be, well, too much like hard work.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES ARE ON PREVIOUS/RECENT CONVICTIONS or DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS – hence a copy and paste job. No thinking, no analysis and no investigation required. A job any monkey could do given the right kind of banana (like one rocket shaped) – about right for a banana republic under special measures.

These probably account for some of the backlog earlier identified. This case: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/82E28440-ADE7-40AE-BB22-2E3096AD36F6/0/CONDUCTHEARINGOYEWOLE.pdf looks a bit more interesting but again probably Disciplinary based (e.g. the woman was sacked) but is listed for a three day hearing. Will the Committee Members stay awake, we wonder? Will the legal advice as usual be crap? With the GSCC even the most seemingly simple of case matters can result in utter mind boggling outcomes only to be overturned by the Care Standards Tribunal.

Talking of which, still upcoming (15 – 18 March 2010) the Hofstetter v GSCC case is listed for hearing by the Care Standards Tribunal as can be seen here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/hearings.htm

That will be very interesting, indeed. Wilt’s inside knowledge indicates a few sparks will be flying and once the venue is set out (probably London) he will be there to observe (work commitments and holidays permitting – he is planning sailing to Malta).

Interesting times ahead, we think.

Wilt

Quite obviously the GSCC do not learn the errors of their ways. Yet again they make a complete fuck up and cause immense distress to a perfectly competent social worker – the latter are in rather short supply so you would reasonably think the GSCC would be extra cautious, but no they had to get their free lunch sorted and get home in time to watch eastenders.

Utter twats.

This is the case of Sonia West. You can see the sad details of her appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal here:

http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1052

And you know, I was beginning to think all this bad news was behind the GSCC and they were to move on to greater things. No such firkin luck, but nothing surprises Wilt about those fucking fools.

The Appeal was upheld and again the GSCC are shown up as complete idiots. Here are some quotes:

“The Applicant gave six reasons in her appeal form. Namely

“(a) the decision to suspend me was disproportionate.

(b) the GSCC did not demonstrate grounds for making a suspension             order.

(c ) I was denied a fair hearing.

(d) the interim order hearing did not follow the rules.

(e) the committee’s justification of their decision was unreasonable.

(f) the committee did not follow the legal assessor’s advice.”

The CST adjudication notes:

“Miss Miszchzanyn was the advocate for the Applicant at the Respondent’s hearing and represented the Applicant before the tribunal. She explained that because of the short period of time between the notification of the hearing and the hearing taking place she attended on the day with her submission and supporting documents to hand in to the committee. These amounted to 32 pages. She handed in the copies when she arrived. She was told before the hearing that the committee would not accept the submission of these documents. She said that in all her experience of appearing at Interim Suspension hearings this was the first time that her submissions and documents had not been accepted by the committee.”

In short she was completely gobsmacked at the utter contempt of the GSCC.

“The parties had assembled at one o’clock. When Miss Miszchzanyn was told that her submissions would not be accepted she then endeavoured to try re-order and re-write what she was going to say to the committee. She said that at approximately two o’clock the clerk to the committee indicated the council’s impatience. Miss Miszchzanyn said she had a sense of being very rushed out of the waiting room and into the hearing. She felt that the panel made it quite clear that the conduct hearing should proceed without any further delay. The Applicant had previously requested an adjournment which had been refused so she did not consider that it was worthwhile to make a further application for an adjournment.”

Even further gobsmacked……..

“At the beginning of the hearing the committee stated through its chairman that “ the committee has considered this late submission (ie the documents from the Applicant) and does not feel that it would actually assist us in our function today, which is to decide whether or not an ISO is necessary for the protection of the members of the public or otherwise in the public interest or indeed in the registrant’s interest. …. I would remind you that this is not a conduct hearing. We are not looking to make any findings of fact. We are merely here to balance the risk of the allegations and the nature of the allegations against protection of the public other public interest and the registrant is interest. We need to restrict our arguments to that endeavour.

`           The Applicant considered that the Respondent’s committee were  pre- judging the Applicant in that they only looked at the employer’s opinion based on the evidence of two letters. In her view the committee did not have any independent factual evidence from the employer to corroborate its findings. She had brought evidence surrounding the issues and was not allowed to submit it. She drew our attention to the fact that she had referred to the submissions and additional evidence on three occasions to the Committee. On this ground it was Miss Miszchzanyn’s submission that the Applicant had not had a fair hearing.”

Prejudging – us the GSCC? What a thought and no you cannot submit evidence – we

are here to fuck up social workers. What has evidence to do with anything?

“The burden of proof in such a hearing is on the Respondent to show why the Applicant should be subject to an interim suspension order. The Applicant submitted that some of the questions by the Respondents committee implied that they were asking her for her reasons why she should not be suspended and therefore placing the burden of proof on her.”

Go on Mrs, your guilty and prove to us otherwise.

The CST concludes, simply and succinctly:

“As noted above we are allowing the appeal on the grounds that the hearing by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee was not fair.”

“Not fair.” Now where have I heard that before?

Now, Wilt is getting on in years and is a bit dim of mind but he seems to recall that

the GSCC have hitherto been warned about unfair hearings and procedures they

adopt on NUMEROUS occasions, or have I imagined that? When will they get it

right, or even get it? Am I wrong to claim these people as complete idiots?

The GSCC are total and utter Dorks of the first order – how do they sleep at night?

Dear God, is it possible please that I only imagine the GSCC exist as it is giving me

complete firkin nightmares regarding what other complete failures they make which

impact on the social care sector, and oh can you arrange for me to win the lottery

tomorrow, please?

Thank you kindly,

Wilt

It’s all happening at the GSCC, and other places.

Firstly, Mike Wardle has been sacked, see the Community Care article her:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/11/09/113111/gscc-dismisses-chief-executive-mike-wardle.html

but one wonders is this another Sharon Shoesmith or Lisa Arthurworrey e.g. scapegoats? Somehow Wilt thinks this might not be the last we have heard of Wardle.

Meanwhile the GSCC has been placed under Special Measures, see the article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/11/05/113074/gscc-given-six-months-by-dh-to-improve-conduct-system.html

with six months to get their act together. There is also an interesting article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/11/the-gscc-needs-reminding-of-wh.html

from Denise Platt, the former Chief Inspector at the now defunct Social Services Inspectorate (now that shows my age) and Chair of the CSCI (now also defunct). She makes some good points.

Meanwhile back at the ranch (GSCC) they have published the details of their latest conduct case, here:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/McLoughlin+Press+Release.htm

An extract from the press statement says it all:

“Craig McLoughlin, 54, who was employed by Sheffield City Council was found to have offered to buy Mr A, a user of services, an alcoholic drink despite knowing that he had been through detox for alcohol dependency. McLoughlin was drunk at the time and said to Mr A, whose father had passed away, words to the effect of “don’t worry about your Dad; I’ll be your Dad” and then went on to disclose to other people in the pub that he was Mr A’s social worker.”

What a dork!

There are three further upcoming cases listed here:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/

There are some juicy allegations in these.

Meanwhile the case of Elleni Cordingley is back in the news – she has won £8000 in compensation from Swansea Council who had sacked her when the Care Council for Wales (the Welsh version of the GSCC) they, grossly, removed her social work registration. The Care Standards overturned that decision and in the process demonstrated that the CCW were, shall we say, utter firkin Dorks.

At the time of writing about that matter earlier this year I said then that Swansea was as bad as the CCW, and this compensation payment confirms it. Nice one!

Elleni declined taking up her old job – I wonder why? Congratulations to Elleni. See the article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/11/09/113113/swansea-social-worker-wins-compensation-after-conduct-reversal.html

GSCC under special measures – you could not make it up! Denise Platt said:

“A regulator must act firmly to take action when concerns about fitness to practice or conduct are raised. It is not only the public that demands this, social workers want it too. Professionals should be dealt with fairly, competently and with integrity.”

Fairness, competence and integrity – yes these are quite normal expectations. Do the GSCC do any of that? No!

Platt adds:

“A regulator needs to practice what it preaches and work to the highest ethical and regulatory standards in its own field. It should ensure that staff are properly trained and developed and that they are confident in their roles, properly equipped to do a difficult job.”

Platt should know all about that – look at the mess of the CSCI which she ultimately had responsibility for before its demise, like the NCSC before it. Mind you, neither the NCSC nor CSCI were ever as bad as the GSCC, the SSSC and CCW.

Platt concludes:

“This is not a good time for the social work regulator to be in trouble – the GSCC needs all the support we can give it at this time.”

Um, well can I disagree? I think the answer is to get shot of them and start again. They employ fools and are lead by fools. There are lots of unemployed people out there far more capable than this lot.

And if social workers demonstrated this level of incompetence, they would not be social workers any more. So, to that helpful list of qualities (“fairness, competence and integrity”) we could add equality?

Wilt

These are the search terms resulting in hits on regulator watch, as of 15 October. Unless otherwise indicated it is one single search term:

regulator watch wilt (47 times)

regulatorwatch wilt (7 times)

wilt on csci (3 times)

regulatorwatch.co.uk (3 times)

gscc fucked (2 times)

cafcass conservatives (2 times)

eleni cordingley (2 times)

tax payers alliance and cafcass (2 times)

robin weekes gscc (2 times)

gscc incompetence (2 times)

rod ryall (2 times)

care standards tribunal decision in the case of tony williams & the gscc (2 times)

www.regulatorwatch.co.uk (2 times)

john hemming cafcass (2 times)

london metropolitan university complaints

wilt community care the purpose of fish

sssc disciplined

dr rod ryall

cuts in cafcass

cafcass cuts

wilt regulator watch

redundancy cafcass

regulator watch social care

mike wardle gscc

scie quango social care institute for excellence

care standards tribunal gscc v tony williams

regulatorwatch

boris Johnson

hilton dawson

bbc iplayer question time 15/10/0910

lorraine brimelow

rod ryall Calderdale

rod ryall scout

wilt community care october 200910

rgulator watch wilt

www.regulatorwatch.co.uk

local government pensions bbc

cafcass wasting government money

It must be said that the Care Council for Wales (very much unlike the GSCC) are at least willing to ADMIT to making a fuck up. See the press release here:

http://www.ccwales.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=104

So good on you CCW. However, there are a few points of note as others have commented on this Blog. The term “scrupulous” applied to the investigation by the CCW is laughable as anyone who reads the Care Standards Tribunal judgement can see. The only scrupulous aspect to the investigation, or rather its competence of making a reasoned judgement, was that it was scrupulously twat like  in doing so, twats. If there was ever pillock like behaviour the CCW only come second after the GSCC or Ed Balls. Here is an extract from the press release:

“Commenting on the decision, Care Council Chief Executive Rhian Huws Williams said: “We obviously accept and respect the Tribunal’s decision and Mrs Cordingley’s name will be restored to the Register of Social Care Workers.

“The Care Council takes its regulatory role very seriously and is scrupulous and fair in the way it investigates every case of alleged misconduct involving social workers or social care workers. The Care Council will examine the decision of the tribunal and assess whether there are any implications for similar cases in the future,” she added.

Removal from the Register of Social Care Workers is one of the sanctions available to the Care Council as the social care workforce regulator in Wales. Through its work, the Care Council aims to improve the social care services used by around 150,000 people at any one time in Wales, and raise public confidence in those services.”

The rather casual manner in which the CCW decide to reinstate Cordingley is only matched by its rather casual manner in which they attempted to destroy her career.  Get a grip CCW, otherwise you will become the laughing stock of a very noble nation of grounded and decent people.  You gain the pillock award for September 2009, and boy do you deserve it.

Eleni – good on yer . May you prosper and go on to be an excellent social worker. Don’t let the bastards get you down.

Wilt

Again the Care Standards Tribunal (CST) has brought clarity and light where the social care regulator, this time the Care Council for Wales (CCW) have  acted in very bad taste and pampered to the press rather than logic, and  NOT applied dispassionate analysis , which is their absolute duty– sadly the CCW are going the same way as those Dorks at the GSCC (General Social Care Council).

This case involves Eleni Cordingley , formerly a social worker of some several years qualified experience in Swansea. The CST considered her appeal against the Care Council for Wales and can be found here:

http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1041

The CST website is here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/ and the Care Council for Wales website here:

http://www.ccwales.org.uk/ They carry out the same functions as the English GSCC, with sister agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Care Standards Tribunal who upheld the appeal of Cordingley lambasted, albeit very nicely, the Care Council for Wales for effectively not doing their job, being lazy and incompetent (my words, but that is what it comes down to). Where do they get these committee members from? Mars? Even worse where do they get their staff, and it particular its legal officers who advise on basic things like human rights and proportionality? Jupiter?

Actually it is a little known planet in our solar system that some can pinpoint when the telescope of reality is applied – it’s called planet Dork. It’s a very dark place being a long way from the Sun (not the newspaper, although in its stupidity it is very close to that) where the clear light of day is replaced by a gloom that is so overwhelming that it obviously distorts the populations view of the real world. Dorks, in fact, are not very good natured or indeed insightful people – they certainly know sod all about fairness or proportionality and even less about social work, which they are meant to regulate.

Cordingly had been implicated in the case of Aaron Gilbert, aged 13 months, who was murdered in May 2005 by mother’s boyfriend, Andrew Lloyd – he was imprisoned for murder whilst mother went to jail for failing to prevent his death. Rather unusually Aaron  was not on the child protection register and there was no active social work involvement. Cordingly who never met the family was processing a referral to gather more data/facts when Aaron was killed. She was subsequently disciplined by Swansea City Council and given a warning, albeit she admitted fault her actions were not reckless but her judgement was perhaps at its best but well meaning in again another dysfunctional organisation – Swansea Council are effectively under special measures.

Cordingley was vilified in the press but she continued on regardless in Swansea until several years later she applied to renew her registration with the CCW – quite rightly she notified CCW of the above who then decided in their wisdom (sic) to investigate further. The result – they removed Cordingleys registration and Swansea sacked her in January 2009.

Now, Wilt is a rather simple fellow. He, together with the far more intelligent CST (Care Standards Tribunal), was in light of these facts left a little bewildered, as no doubt was poor Eleni Cordingley. Now, if Wilt and the CST can do some simple analysis and apply compassion, proportionality and intellect, why cannot CCW?

Here are some observations by the CST:

“It is incumbent upon any regulatory body to give full reasons to explain their decision making processes. The decision following two days hearing runs to just 3 ½ pages. The rationale of the decision is as follows;

“The misconduct admitted in this case is considered so serious that removal from the register is the only appropriate sanction. This is necessary for the protection of the public and to uphold the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services. ”

“The only reference to alternative sanctions is to say that they were considered but not felt appropriate. Their inappropriateness is not explained. There is no reference to the context in the Assessment and Investigation team at the time, no reference to Mrs Cordingley’s subsequent performance, no reference to her insight, no reference to her remorse. There is no consideration of the fact that 3 ½ years have passed without any further concerns being raised. Critically there is no analysis of why this conduct was considered so serious that no other sanction was appropriate. The impression is gained that the Committee was so influenced by the fact that underlying all the issues was the death of Aaron, that they failed to analyse forensically the decision making on 27 April 2005 objectively and dispassionately.”

I mean, I know Wilt is a bit of a simple fellow, but does one recognise a certain familiar pattern emerging here?

The text of the CST hearing goes on:

“The Conduct Committee’s decision has the effect of depriving Mrs Cordingley of her livelihood. Accordingly any such decision has to be proportionate to the misconduct found or admitted. In this case there was a wrong decision made. In the context of the manner in which the information was received and the pressure this new team were under it is a misjudgement that others may also make. It is, in the cold light of day and with the benefit of hindsight, a serious error but when she made the decision she did not have the time and space that others over the years have had to dissect it. We do not consider that the misconduct in itself justified the ultimate sanction. It was not a case of gross misconduct. It was not the culmination of a long record of poor decision making. It did not display dishonesty or breach of trust. It was an error of professional judgment.”

The CST go on to adjudicate:

“Since the Maria Caldwell case in the 1980’s a number of child deaths have generated expensive enquiries looking at how agencies can do better to protect children from murder by their parents and carers. Through cases such as Kimberley Carlisle and Tyra Henry through the Victoria Climbie case to Baby Peter society has tried to understand how the deaths occurred to prevent future deaths. Alongside this has grown a culture of blame not toward those who perpetrate the crimes but toward the professionals doing their best to protect children. Yet despite the increased levels of hysteria homicide rates have remained relatively consistent over the years. People will continue to kill children despite, not because of, the efforts of professionals. No system can prevent desperate, inadequate or depraved people abusing their children.

It is important that those charged with the regulation of the professions remain vigilant not only in rooting out dangerous practice but to the necessity not to be swayed by apparent calls for retribution towards professionals. A professional conduct committee must offer a forum for detached, informed and detailed evaluation of the alleged misconduct itself. The consequences, however tragic, of the misconduct should not be allowed to dictate the sanction imposed.

It follows from what we have said above that we do not consider that Mrs Cordingley’s honest but wrong decision fell into the category of decisions that required the ultimate sanction. The misconduct itself cannot however be considered in isolation. It was incumbent upon the conduct committee to consider the mitigation that Mrs Cordingley had to offer; her work record, her remorse, her insight.

Under S68 our powers are limited to either allowing the appeal or dismissing it. We have no hesitation in allowing it. We have been told by Mr Miles that the Care Council for Wales will give careful consideration to any alternative sanction that we recommend. The events that have been analysed in depth took place over 4 years ago. Mrs Cordingley has been punished enough. She has been out of work since February 2009, she has suffered vilification and her health has been adversely affected. To suspend her now for events 4 years ago would be inappropriate. We cannot see that given all the positive measures taken by Mrs Cordingley to January 2009 an admonishment is necessary or reasonable. We therefore recommend that no further action be taken.

Appeal Allowed.

We direct that the decision taken by the Care Council for Wales on 23 January 2009 to remove her name from the Register of Social Workers not have effect.”

Wilt is now adding the CCW to the Dork list and is on probation pending any signs of improvement in, well, basic intelligence, understanding their role and delivering on justice – and not just justice for the press.

I hope CCW you feel rightly ashamed. And you seemed to be doing so well. Get a grip will, you!

Of course Swansea Council were no better – they could have relocated Cordingley to a non-social work (qualified) post pending this appeal, bit no she was too convenient a scapegoat – that sounds very familiar too, as it would to people like Lisa Arthurworry.

What an utter waste of public money – the CCW. What a breath of fresh air, and sunlight, the CST.

I think there should be some new regulations – those which fine the Regulators when they fail to do even the basic of tasks which they are paid to do, at huge public expense. Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!! What total pillocks.

Wilt

What is it about MPs and why they lack an understanding of the moral questions over their allowances. One should say a number of MPs as it is by far from all. One suspects the silent majority would still argue they ‘are worth it.’ Mmmmmmm. That is very debatable. The Telegraph today reveals some MPs responses to the formal review of allowances in this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6112443/MPs-expenses-MPs-who-milked-the-expenses-system-now-complain-about-attempts-to-reform-it.html

Guido (http://order-order.com/) was also right the other day to comment that the MPs allowances  scandal will not go away soon and voters will remember come the time of the election.

They just aint got a clue. Wilt is thinking of inviting a few MPs for a video interview on how they can, for instance, claim the full £400 per month for food without receipts. Wilt can feed a family of three and a host of animal pets on that much and still get change from £400.

I wonder how many MPs will be willing to give an explanation of they can spend so much?

On other news Guido (http://order-order.com/) is back and Jeremy Paxman is too from Tuesday next week, no doubt followed by a horde of other political and other leading correspondents. Silly season will start again – just love it. In October the report on the competence of the GSCC will be published and no doubt another round of GSCC and Care Standards Tribunal case outcomes.

Strangely the GSCC have as yet not published the outcome of their latest hearing (a Birmingham Social Worker) and neither have Community Care. Mmmmmmmm! Is there something embarrassing on that one? Normally if the GSCC have successfully applied the ‘Cosh’ they immediately publish the outcome. Very curious indeed then, that there is no news, unless Wilt has missed something. No update on the GSCC recently concluded hearings (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/recently_concluded_hearings/) and the case has been deleted from the upcoming cases (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/). Very odd. Well, perhaps not, it is the GSCC. There is always a method in their madness, and madness prevails at the GSCC. It is probably a ‘damage limitation’ exercise – keep the public ignorant.

I wonder if Paxo will respond to my suggestion that he should look a litter closer at the GSCC?

Wilt

Another bites the dust. Generally the SSSC (Scottish Social Services Council) are a bit more grounded and sensible than the GSCC but one still wonders, is a social workers practice so bad that further training or other conditions on registration would suffice rather than lose another from the depleted ranks. After all she does not have serious criminal convictions (as far as we know), is in good health (as far as we know)  has not robbed her clients and not shagged a service user.

Social Workers are leaving the profession – one friend of Wilt who lives in Glasgow, and a very competent and experienced social worker, just threw in the towel last year feeling it was a no longer for her. She now works part time undertaking a very menial job but utterly loves it – no overwhelming sense of responsibility (she  turns up and does the business), no paperwork or unfathomable computer screens, and no stress. It does not pay so well, but so what.

Of course we do not know all the details of the SSSC case but one does wonder if removal from the register is warranted. Let us also remember that Aberdeen are in utter chaos having had poor inspections and did this social worker get all the support she needed, were there competent managers and was her workload reasonable?  Could not an admonishment with conditions on continued registration have been made? Is this another CST (Care Standards Tribunal) case in the making?  And of course we know the SSSC do make cock ups too – see the following: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/08/scottish-social-services-council/

I do really hope the SSSC are not going the way of the nerds at the GSCC. That would be sad. Keep a perspective people, please.

See the article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/08/17/112376/social-worker-barred-for-repeated-child-protection-failings.html

The SSSC website here: http://www.sssc.uk.com/Homepage.htm

Oh and by the way Glasgow is an ever so nice city, and the people a treasure (preferably when they are sober). Mrs Wilt loved the shopping as Wilt wilted under the pressure of retail therapy – Gawd!!  However, even Wilt was impressed with the choice of the retail facilities. Mrs Wilt spent a fortune so Wilt has crossed off any further options to visit Glasgow for the foreseeable future. Money is far better spent on cider, fags and gadgets.

Hamden Park however (http://www.hampdenpark.co.uk/) is a shithole of a venue – in fact it’s a disgrace. Excellent transport systems though – almost as impressive as those in Holland.

Wilt

Quangoland  is a fairytale place of wonder, where all the folk are very well paid, get loads of holidays and wonderful benefits. The structure of its governance means that as a free state within a state it is accountable to no one. No one is elected in Quangoland.

Its economy is based on the Robber Baron concept of extracting taxes from those who are required to pay homage to them, and a very lucrative form of piracy where the Government of the day dole out huge sums of dosh to them.

Quangolanders are having a great time. No expense spared, not accountable to anyone and they can make up rules to serve themselves. Living in Quangoland is rather good. They love nothing better than taking the piss when all around them are trying to find real work to do and find enough dosh to feed the kids.

How do the subjects of Quangoland view them? Well, it is mixed but generally the subjects (not Quangolanders but serfs of the Robber Barons) are getting rather peeved.

“Why do we need these Quango” says one serf to the other, who responds “What good have they ever done?” Regrettably this is not a Monty Python sketch, as otherwise this story could end up supporting the Quango. In the Monty Python (Life of Brian) fashion the reply would be, “They build the roads, the aqueducts the sewerage system etc., etc.” In Quangoland however the Robber Barons have actually achieved very little, if anything – if someone has an alternative view, please do speak up. It is very probable that in many cases they have actually made things worse.

The serfs of the Quango are however in a bit of a pickle. Serfs do not have a vote and the Government who appoint them have no control over them. So what are they to do, the serfs that is? Armed insurrection? No the serfs are peaceful people. Refuse to pay their Robber Barons? All that will result is that they will end up literally in chains. Complain? Who do serfs complain to? The Barons, the Government? The Barons and indeed the Government have too much invested in each other, so what is the point. Try reasoned argument? That assumes the Quango or the Government are reasonable, and there appears little evidence of that.

Poke fun at them? Insult them? Prove that they are a ‘spot on the landscape’ (Note the Wilt connection)? YES, now that might help, if only to allow us poor serfs to have a bit of a laugh and prove we are intellectually superior to the Robber Barons of Quangoland.

A recent article to ponder over:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8198105.stm

and here:

http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/bcn136

and here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/08/gscc-draconian/

and here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/07/gscc-in-chaos/

and here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/07/gscc-not-being-transparent/

and here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/07/quango-review/

and here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/06/the-care-standards-tribunal/

and finally, here:

http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/05/gscc/

Wilt