Wilt Portfolio

In this article in Community Care http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/02/116208/gscc-committed-to-improving-profession-in-final-year.htm the CEO of the GSCC is “committed to improving the profession” in its final year of existence as a regulator.

It’s a crying shame they were not committed to the same in the previous 7 years in its abysmal mismanagement of regulating social care.

Wilt Portfolio

Penny Thompson is quoted as saying:

“There will be no let-up in the focus on quality and fairness.” AND

“We are continuing to learn from what we do and improve the quality of our assessments and investigations.”

In fact, they never learn judging by the findings of the Second Tier Care Standards Tribunal who have criticised them over and over again on unfairness, disproportionate actions/decisions and sometimes downright skulduggery in the dealings with registrants and prospective registrants. And that includes very recent criticisms.

What planet does this Penny Thompson live on?

Wilt

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

I do like this chap (Martin Narey) at Barnardo’s – indeed we like the charity; definitely one of the better ones, in Wilt’s opinion.

However he is a little ‘come lately’ on this subject matter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10908026

There is a further article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/09/115067/children-harmed-by-long-delays-in-family-courts-charity-finds.htm

Wit and others predicted this situation (delays) pre the implementation of the Children Act 1989 – Wilt recalls implementation day on 14^th October 1991; it is etched in his memory. It was a well intentioned Act but by the mid 1990’s it was very, very apparent that it was failing in one of its primary concerns – that delay in making decisions on solutions for children was harmful.

And why?

Well, it is simple – the Act was hailed as the “children’s charter” but it was everything but giving, in practice, ‘paramount’ concern for the child. It transpired a lucrative avenue of income source, in order, for:

i)             Lawyers (especially for parents)

ii)            Children’s Guardians (and their lawyers)

iii)           Expert witnesses who seemed to grow out of the walls

One could not move for lawyers (some simple “fee earners”), Guardians (some of limited credibility and less competence) and so called ‘Experts.’ Some of the experts appeared to be close friends or even relatives or business partners of the Guardian.

And where was the child in all this?

“Who the fuck is the child” we hear cried – “what does it have to do with them” it is exclaimed!”

So, Barnardo’s, where were you in 1995 – its 2010 (15 years later) and you now complain?

A bit late, me thinks but your observations are belatedly welcome.

Wilt

Next on the hit list is Ofsted – see Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/29/115011/ofsted-to-face-select-committee-inquiry.htm

No news yet of the future of Cafcass but this article might give you a clue that the Government have them in their sights: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/28/114997/cafcass-efficiency-questioned-by-national-audit-office.htm

What will happen to all these people? One suspects the local authority vacancy levels in social care might fall.

Wilt will however not be joining them.

Wilt

The GSCC continue to operate as ‘normal’ pending the transfer in March 2012 to the to be renamed Health Professionals Council http://www.hpc-uk.org/ – or one should say the proposed move in 2012. Many in the Community Care Blog Care Space http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/gscc-to-be-scrapped-health-professionals-8085.aspx#32964 have mixed feelings about it.

The GSCC gives advice on the implications of the recent announcement of their demise here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ and click on big red “i” icon. In short business as usual – mmmmm.

Meanwhile the GSCC has published a number of recent outcomes from their Conduct Committee. This is a very odd one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/435BAC0D-2BA8-493F-B815-9DD47CB9FFBC/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONHIBBERTS.pdf

Essentially the GSCC dropped the case after it was unable to convince a local authority manager to give evidence and to proceed without it would amount to hearsay. Now you would think the GSCC would have realised this before taking it to Committee.

The GSCC are in a difficult position because they cannot force either a registrant or witness to attend – they have no teeth in effect. Not helpful. And of course they have no powers over employers and the code of conduct relating to them is not worth the paper they are written on – it’s just a wish list in effect.

Whoever drew up this legislation and the employers codes needs a jolly good lesson in ‘how not to make a balls-up.’

Other recent concluded hearings include this one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AA176AF6-7A81-4CB7-8BD5-12FE7E710EA0/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONSIMPSON.pdf

Note the offending behaviour relates to 2008 – either this was part of the backlog or the GSCC were not previously aware of it. The naughty boy was looking at pornography on his employer’s computer.

He was suspended for two years.

Another: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/30BF47BA-8D5E-4B6B-8329-DCE583C46253/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMAHABIR.pdf resulted in a one year suspension. This did go back to issues between 2004 – 2008 and the GSCC were made aware of his drink-drive conviction of December 2004 (after he was first registered by the GSCC) in, and I find it odd how they term it, “around 19^th November 2008;” either it was or it was not the 19^th November 2008 – what’s with this “around” business?

So exactly what were the GSCC doing between (“around)” the 19^th November 2008 and 21st July 2010?  Not a lot it would seem. The registrant had asked that his GSCC hearing be postponed as he claimed it would prejudice his Employment Tribunal, which it appears is still pending.

And the disposal by way of a one year suspension, is that proportionate especially as he did eventually cough up the details to the GSCC, albeit four years later? Wilt thinks no – far more appropriate would have been an admonishment.

However, the registrant only has himself to blame as he was not in attendance to defend himself or give evidence. With the GSCC that, as a friend would say, is like a turkey voting for an early Christmas.

Each case is worth a read – click on the links above.

The GSCC have published their latest up-coming hearings here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/

Among some interesting ones are:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC31BFE1-A33D-4596-A2C9-F4925B29C6D8/0/SummaryJanjua.pdf

AND:

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/134F01BD-EEF2-4797-92BD-3F07B424BDA3/0/SummaryNia.pdf

AND

http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F6D734C8-77A7-4D4D-B828-54CA474507A7/0/SummaryHenderson.pdf

Why does the GSCC need to get involved in this matter http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B002178D-48C2-4B2F-ADF0-D1309F474498/0/SummaryNyabunze.pdf one is left to wonder?

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

What a fucking twat: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/21/114947/Doncaster-social-services-bomber-jailed.htm

You see social workers are in the eyes of some legitimate targets. This twat joins the ranks of the likes of Mrs C although her brand of terrorism is (to date) a little less physically violent.

What is it of late with these Northerners roaming the towns and countryside with guns and bombs? Now the latter bloke (the “screw” bomber) might have been tipped over the edge, but the two gunmen, and those that support Moat, were/are just fucking evil.

Wilt

Gulp: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/childrens-services-blog/2010/07/marion-davis-to-gove-dismantle-the-role-of-independent-sws.html

Wilt feels an earlier than planned ‘early retirement’ might be coming on.

Actually Wilt has always believed that local authority social workers are “experts” in their own right (notwithstanding the occasional idiot) but to totally exclude the option of independents (ISW’s) in the Court system would be both unwise and unworkable. As Wilt has said many times on these pages, it is possible to reduce the number of experts and indeed to be more selective when appointing Guardians – and of course getting rid of Cafcass.

Both Guardians and ISW’s can and do make a very significant difference in terms of their much broader and greater experience. Most often ISW’s (Independent Social Workers) save money by shortening proceedings, despite Marion Davis claiming:

“Removing this role from the family justice system would not only contribute to reducing delays in care proceedings, but would also reduce costs.”

In fact as Wilt knows only too well, not infrequently ISW’s are brought in by social services because they lack either the resources or skills. Thus excluding ISW’s would cause more delay.

Very often local authority social workers are not given the “status” they rightly deserve and in that sense ISW’s are drafted in on occasions unnecessarily – that is because inevitably birth parents (etc) demand another opinion and Guardians, who should in appropriate cases challenge, fail to resist the instruction of an ISW. Judges depend greatly on their Guardians – who are hopefully rooted into reality. On occasions Wilt has thought that his appointments were unnecessary – the evidence was already there?

On the other hand, ISW’s play a vital role, not just in terms of expertise and to overcome a lack of resources in the local authority, but also because many social workers actually welcome it, and regrettably on occasions because local authorities are quite simply incompetent.

Yes reduce the number of experts, and Guardians can be more robust in this regard, but Marion Davis has, it seems, attacked the ISW outright as a waste of money. That is not very clever, unwise and the next time her authority is looking for an expert they may just say, “No thanks.”

Now where was it Marion Davis works – must add it to the Dork list.

Wilt

One less social worker from the profession: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/03/114636/disabilities-worker-jailed-for-stealing-19000-from-client.htm and jolly good ridden to him too – just the kind of person the profession does not need.

One wonders how long the GSCC will take to remove him from the register. No rush one supposes but an easy task for the Conduct Team one can imagine.

Wilt

It was nice up in North Wales just chilling out after a week overseas working. Weather was brilliant and Salty Dog went for a paddle in the bay. Proper cider, too!

Meanwhile at the House Dave the man did his first PMQs today and absent was various faces from all sides. Particularly notable was the absence of basket case Plaskitt – twat. Cameron did rather well, we think – mind you Harriett Harman as the stand in opposition leader is not exactly a huge challenge.

Of course also absent from the front bench was a certain Mr Laws – otherwise a thieving bastard whatever excuses he might make. There is no doubt though that he is a loss to the Government. His replacement looks like a spotty teenager that lives here in the village – it is probably Wilt just getting older.

In the high pay disclosures why is Wilt not surprised that Behan and that utter fucking Dork Christine Gilbert (Ofsted) are being paid more than the PM: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/01/114622/behan-and-gilbert-among-whitehalls-top-earners.htm

And of course Ofsted and a whole host of quango are up for review, especially Ofsted: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/02/114630/ofsteds-inspection-criteria-to-be-reviewed-by-bureaucracy-tsar.htm

Thinking of going to work in Doncaster: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/02/eric-pickles-doncaster-mayor

We suggest not just yet but Wilt will be offering his services to the hit squad sent in by our man Eric.

Wilt is around for a few days before flying off again to his ever growing contract work offshore – and it aint an oil rig. Only a few days away this next time, but various other trips are planned for the summer, autumn and indeed the New Year. Good money too.

The air miles are totting up too – and you know because flights are funded by my contractors, Wilt will use the air miles to obtain free flights for business trips. We do not use such perks to line our own pockets but instead feed it back to the contractor. That is what a reasonable person does. We wonder what MPs do with their air miles?

Who will keep Regulator Watch warm and cosy in my absence? Why of course Mrs C – she keeps visiting several times a day. Obviously she does not have enough to do. More to the point she does not earn her wages and wastes public funds as if they were a bottomless pit.

Well, at least Behan can sleep well at night on his salary and no doubt has fond memories of, nicely, telling Plaskitt and Mrs C to fuck off. We think it was him that signed those rather large cheques paying out compensation to those people Mrs C and Plaskitt harassed. They too sleep very well, comfortably and with a clear conscience – unlike Mrs C.

Life is good for those who work for it.

Wilt