Wilt has had the following Email:

Dear Wilt,

Having been outside of the country for some time I thought I wanted to drop a line about one of my favourite case, Jacinta Hofstetter vs GSCC. I am not sure how close you are from the CST but it seems that you have a very positive view of their work. On my side I spent, for professional reasons, a fair amount of time looking at the Jacinta Hofstetter case. I must say that when I saw the CST judgment I could not believe they produced such poor piece of work, the lack of intellectual rigour is astonishing. The person claimed that she was bullied, harassed and victim of racial insult from a manger at Brent. She moreover accused this manager of having made significant mistakes putting children at risk. Despite evidence this was never investigated either by GSCC and the CST. Not only was it not investigated but the manager was used as a witnessed, produced a statement though did not turn up at the hearing! It was proved that two witnesses lied in their statement, again no mention of this made by GSCC or the CST, only that the witnesses were credible, to lie is credible? One witnessed who conducted the investigation against Jacinta Hofstetter recognised that she had not experience in conducting disciplinary hearing, was out of her depth and was asked to build a case against the defendant instead of investigating impartially. It is in the recording of the hearing but nowhere in the GSCC final statement of the CST. Nobody complained against Jacinta Hofstetter whilst working in Brent. It is only after her suspension that people were asked to complain about her. Evidence though presented were not considered as even not quoted or disproved. Start seeing a pattern? Who would honestly believe that someone with a 15 years of career, became, in the middle of it, for around 12 month, totally and utterly incompetent, and this by coincidence just after reporting her manager for…incompetence! Despite all the GSCC efforts it was still recognised that no children were harmed or put at risk. But who cares, the point is that Jacinta Hofstetter did not go on her knees in front of the GSCC or the CST and fought for what she thought was right. Good for her, I like this! GSCC spent ~£0.5m on to make up a case against her. She obviously did not have this kind of money to spend. I could spend the night going through the details of how wrong this case was and I have no doubt in my mind it was a miscarriage of justice. However I am sure you have better things to do and even if it is not always obvious we are in a democracy and everybody can have his/her point of view.

Best regards,

Justicewillbedone.

Wilt predicted precisely this 12 months ago: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/26/114986/sector-leaders-shocked-and-surprised-by-abolition-of-gscc.htm

According to Community Care sector leaders are shocked – well they should have been reading Regulator Watch. So, no surprise to Wilt and he will not be on his own in feeling pleased. The GSCC, with its stupid logo, has been a nightmare from day one. No doubt staff will be leaving to find new, proper, jobs with far less perks and salary – good.

The GSCC was after all one of the primary reasons for Regulator Watch being set up – to publicise those aspects of their work which they preferred not to have published.  You know like the major cock ups they frequently made and continue to make. What will Regulator Watch do without them and after the demise of Plaskitt (ex) MP and his demonic constituent?

Of course there is no word about the sister agencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – and the functions of the GSCC will be transferred and subsumed by the Health Professions Council. Let’s see how well they do. For sure they cannot do any worse.

I like the title of the Government Report found here: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_117832.pdf

“Liberating the NHS” has a certain, very satisfying ring to it! The title of Chapter 5 will be particularly poignant to some people in Oxfordshire and Salop.

Pages 21 – 23 deal with the proposed abolition of the GSCC and transfer of its functions. Interestingly, there is a hint that social work students will not be required to register and, unlike at present, the new registration will require no government subsidy i.e. total self funding.

Legislation will be introduced in November 2010 to make all the various changes and implementing the transfer of functions by the GSCC will be effective from April 2012 – these are indicative as distinct from absolute. If all goes to plan, by the end of March 2012 the GSCC will no longer exist – the end of an era error!

So who next? The ISA is already under notice and has delayed starting registration – they are as good as toast and Wilt predicts they will be gone before the end of the year.

Ofsted, Cafcass and Scie? The latter, to my surprise is not a public body although one suspects it gets some funding – it is widely predicted it will not survive. Wilt predicts Ofsted will get broken up and demolished and Cafcass will simply disappear.

The General Teaching Council is already toast. You never know, it might yet come about that regulation of social care might just go the same way. If not, expect to pay more for your registration or start calling yourself something other the protected title of “social worker.”

When the term ‘bonfire of the quangos’ was termed – they really meant it!

Good.

Wilt

Now is this proportionate in terms of a disposal: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5ACC11F0-B8F9-4647-A690-9C85F7DF986C/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMainsahKiven.pdf

A five year admonishment – why? Are the GSCC effectively deciding to stop the woman working? We think so.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) will have a record and her CRB check will show the convictions. What exactly are the GSCC achieving by adding a 5 year admonishment? They just love to pile on the shit whenever given the opportunity.

This disposal is so disproportionate – indeed it is outrageous.

Wilt

Quangoland is today looking over its shoulder to see if Michael Gove or one of his colleagues is approaching them with an axe. See BBC article here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10221877.stm

Blooming brilliant – the General Teaching Council for England is as good as gone, although the GTCE seem to want to fight it. Fucking Dorks.

Who next, we wonder? The General Social Care Council must be on the hit list although of course that comes under the Department of Health. Here are a list of ministers: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/MinistersandDepartmentLeaders/Ministers/index.htm

Paul Burstow looks like the kind of man that could have an axe or three tucked up his sleeve. And then of course there are those nice people at Ofsted and indeed that utter mess Cafcass. Ofsted will not disappear but they certainly will be cut back in a way the term “cuts” has never before been used. After all with “people power” and parents running schools, who needs Ofsted inspectors.

Cafcass on the other hand would never be missed, by anyone – least of all children’s guardians and the Courts. Guardians are not needed in every case – indeed in some cases Guardians are simply an obstacle. Actually, some Guardians (like some social workers) are utter fucking Dorks and would not know one end of a child from the other – not unlike some Ofsted inspectors.

Get rid of Cafcass and a huge amount of dosh could be saved – allocate a budget to the Courts and they can determine if a Guardian is needed above and beyond a child’s solicitor. In fact, one could spot purchase the work of a Guardian in the same way as “expert” reports are purchased to address a particular set of questions. That is far more economical and will sort out the wheat from the chaff. They will live or die (professionally) on the basis of competence and not simply because the law says a Guardian must always be appointed or because have to have an overview of the complete case.

Talking of chaff, there are several more quango Wilt would add to the list, but Gove has made an excellent start. Example – the ISA.

Wilt

This was an interesting find: http://www.neumansllp.com/legal_support/social_workers/index.html

This firm of solicitors are offering specific services to social workers and in particular dealings with the GSCC – I like them already. We will add them to our recommended list of helpful websites.

They claim to be a UK wide service and I guess out there will be a customer base to serve the frontline social workers. For certain the traffic to Regulator Watch (based on search terms) indicates there is continued anxiety among GSCC and other social care Registrants about the GSCC and others. Here are some exam-le search terms from the month so far:

mike wardle

ofsted reports sandwell social service

interim suspension order draconian

robin weekes gscc

mike wardle sacked

michael wardle ofsted

gscc south Africa

falsifying qualifications social work

suspension of the gscc’s chief executive mike wardle peter

eleni cordingley

gscc incompetent

gscc fail

sssc sites

social worker poor record keeping

can cafcass request crb checks

gscc hearings

go straight to the care standards tribunal

sssc register

gscc legal cases

sssc cases won at appeal

disband the gscc

gscc notice of decision

the power to dismiss gscc committee members

gscc fucked

social workers under investigation by the gscc

what happened before gscc

gscc investigation process

regulator mrs c

gscc bullying

gscc special measures

shirley o malley social worker

robin conduct manager gscc

gscc panel members vacancies

gscc regulator

mike-wardle

poor record keeping by social workers

hate gscc

westberkshire council tribunal

The full list of search terms which lead to Regulator Watch can be found here: webstats 21 may

What is quite remarkable is that the search term “the power to dismiss gscc committee members” was made by a well known London firm of solicitors who have frequently and regularly represented the GSCC in conduct cases, at investigation stage (conducting investigations), in prosecuting misconduct and in defending (not very successfully always) appeals to the first tier Care Standards Tribunal.

We wonder which committee member they are trying to get rid of?

This Robin Weekes fella at the GSCC seems to get a regular search on the internet – he is or was the head of conduct at the GSCC who thought he had confidentially disclosed that Mrs C (her of the Hovel) as “actually being vexatious.”  On that much he was certainly right.

Mrs C remains the most frequent visitor to Regulator Watch – bless her, the poor twat.

We will report further at the end of the month on the full access to Regulator Watch with a particular emphasis on Mrs C and her declining number of enforced and unwilling supporters.

Wilt

The Independent Safegaurding (ISA) authority has been established and will operate from Darlington. Yet another quango that it is reported will be staffed by 250. Well, at least it is not in London. The ISA has been established as a result of the Bichard Inquiry (2004) which looked into the circumstances concerning Ian Huntly employed as a school caretaker in Soham and where he murdered Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002.

They have taken over the running of the List 99 (education) which lists teachers barred from practice, the PoVA and PoCA list which lists those unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and children respectively. Those three lists become two lists concerning children and adults and will be managed by one service. That is a good move.

They have an advice line service – see their website. They become live in October 2009 and they will begin to register everyone concerned in work or voluntary work plus their dogs and cats) with children or vulnerable adults. Registrants have to pay for their registration. I bet teachers and others employed in the public sector will have their fees for registration paid! Unlike Wilt who will have to pay his own fee.

There is some controversy around this agency and whether it is going to be effective, indeed cost effective especially if local authorities and other public bodies pay for their staff to be registered.  Voluntary agencies such as the NSPCC (who are very wealthy) will no doubt increase their vommit inducing TV advertising Full Stop! to cover the additional cost, but smaller voluntary groups might well suffer hugely – individual volunteers are exempt (in terms of cost) as in the case of the CRB, but small and large voluntary agencies alike who employ staff are not exempt. There is also a query whether, for example in the case of RELATE, who fee pay their councellors for work done (hence neither volunteer or employee but effectively self employed) will need to foot the bill. Wilt suspects those ’self employed’ will be required to pay their own one off registration fee, cos RELATE cannot afford it.

So social care workers will in many cases not only have to register with the GSCC (£30+ every three years) and also certainly have a CRB check (£30+ per check) and register with the ISA (£60+ one off payment, as yet!) – at this rate Wilt will have to take out a new mortgage. I would not mind so much but I am not conviced that the ISA (like the GSCC) will have any impact, or little impact. Let us not forget there was already police intelligence on Ian Huntley in Soham but the police failed to disclose the details to the school, citing Data Protection legislation – utter dorks! As yet the GSCC are to discipline a registrant who has not already been disciplined/sacked by an employer or convicted of an offence, and even then (as in Lisa Arthurworrey) they sometimes make a ball-up. The nearest the GSCC got to a success was in preventing the registration of a student social worker on the grounds that he had failed to disclose his HIV status – they were fined for that by the Employment Tribunal. Oh, and several other landmark findings by the Care Standards Tribunal, showing them (the GSCC) as total fools.

On the issue of cost, it is Wilt’s opinion that each individualshould have their registration costs met out of their own pocket – otherwise it is another stealth tax on the unsuspecting tax/community charge (poll tax) payer. Well, I suppose either way it is a stealth tax but at least I do not have to pay for others to be registered on top of my own costs. Wilt is going to have a word (or several) in the shell like ear of his mate the local Cllr XXXX XXXXX to ensure that in my local authority area that its staff pay for all three registrations (CRB/ISA/GSCC) out of their pocket, and not mine. At least that will be a start and my Council Tax bill might be reduced by a few £pounds.

The issue of effectiveness of yet another costly quango remains an open question – presently Wilt is dubious – actually more than dubious but in the interests of safegaurding (a matter close to his heart) he will await and see how matters progress.

Wilt