Wilt Portfolio

This is not good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-13892076

Clearly lessons have not been learned following the deaths of Baby Pater and Climbe, and a whole host of other child death case matters that precede them. It is unacceptable and putting it down to poor communication, albeit a convenient press headline, is simply misleading. Clearly the BBC article points to individual failings among professionals, and indeed by the mother. Where was her family, or indeed the father of the child? As the serious Case Review (SCR) indicates, this child death was avoidable. One worker whose task it was to support the murderers was ill equipped or qualified to perform her role and did not challenge obvious concerns as this would have conflicted with her focus and interfere in the relationship! Never mind the child, darling! Twat.

But then what were the managers doing?

Wilt Portfolio

It is the age old story that professionals are either fearful of parents or are distracted by them – the child is not the centre of concern. What is wrong with these people? And if anyone mentions lack of resources they should have their bollocks cut off. This is not a resource issue, it is incompetence.

A Community Care article is here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/06/23/117063/childrens-services-partly-to-blame-over-toddlers-death.htm

Wilt Portfolio

Wilt took a look at the Wolverhampton City website: http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/ which apart from being the ugliest website ever (similar to the city itself – almost as bad as Coventry) has a link to the Summary SCR.

Wilt once took a wrong turning and arrived in Wolverhampton via Bilston – what a fucking shithole of a place.

Wilt

The General Social Care Council seems to have a twin sister the “under review” Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

From Wilt Portfolio

The ISA http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/ is one of those Quangos currently under review and its remit and scope caused massive a massive outcry of protest and derision after it emerged that every man, woman and their respective dogs and cats would be forced to register (with attendant fee) or otherwise be criminalised.

This included moms and dads who shared the role of the school run! It was shown to be utterly daft and, more importantly, unworkable.

There was a programme set in place to gradually register certain groups (e.g. those already with a CRB check in place) before ever more widely registering virtually everyone who have contact with children (other than their own) and vulnerable adults. That programme was stopped by the present Government whist the ISA was put under review.

It was intended that the ISA would replace the current Protection of Children Act (POCA) list, List 99 (teachers barred) and the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) lists. Murderer Ian Huntley although having been investigated numerous times by police for sexual offences did not appear on any list and the police, famously, relied on the defence that the Data Protection Act prevented action to alert relevant authorities – the response was a not unreasonable public outcry.

The idea for the ISA followed the recommendations of the Bichard Inquiry looking into the events of the Soham murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders) by Ian Huntley.

Recently the Telegraph has revealed in this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8290307/Thousands-could-sue-Government-over-unlawful-child-protection-sackings.html that the ISA is proving to be a complete jerk when it comes to day to day “common sense” decisions – by giving automatic bans from working with children or adults for the most minor of indiscretions, and importantly not giving those people a right to give their side of the story.

The Telegraph gives some interesting examples of simply stupid bureaucratic examples of over and mismanagement by unaccountable quangoland pissheads.

The newspaper article focuses on several cases where people have accepted Police Cautions (i.e. considered minor indiscretions) as distinct from more grevious convictions handed down by a court, such as:

“Yet another mother was cautioned for child neglect after leaving her three children in the care of a seemingly responsible neighbour, a grandmother, while she took a relative to the airport. The neighbour left the children on their own for a while and the mother was barred from taking up a place on a nursing course.”

What a fucking mess. And it could lead to £millions being awarded in compensation to people for loss of earnings – because some twat at the ISA decided to ban various mums and dads from pursuing careers involving either children or vulnerable adults.

What complete fucking Dorks!

Here is another example:

“Another of the nurses, “Mrs W”, was barred for 10 years in June after accepting a caution for leaving her 11-year-old son at home on his own when she went shopping.

Her case was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council which found that she had no case to answer. But Mrs W was unable to work as an agency nurse and, as a single parent responsible for her son, struggled financially. She was removed from the auto-bar list in August 2010, only after the RCN took up her case.”

From Archives

Obviously those at the GSCC and ISA were conceived of the of same stupid fucking mother and father in Whitehall, under the guidance of the Labour Government.

Jesus, what have we created in the aim of public protection? This quango together with its twin (the GSCC) needs burning at the stake. What is wrong with these people – are they not human?

Wilt

Conspiring to Murder Social Work

A social worker convicted in 1995 of Conspiracy to Commit Murder (of her ex husband) has hit the headlines again after she was caught out lying under oath in Court proceedings. Lynda Barnes (and not Linda Barnes) of the same local authority that employs her, Bath and North East Somerset (http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/bathnes) have suspended the team manager and referred her to the GSCC (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/) . Her misleading evidence came to light after a social worker she managed blew the whistle when Barnes asked her to conspire by also giving false evidence, and this was reported to the Court.

Barnes it is alleged was something a a ‘force to reckon with’ according to some reports and her team were not confident under her leadership.

I first came across this report earlier this week in the Blog of Allan Norman (a social worker and solicitor closely associated with BASW and of the Birmingham law firm Celtic Knot (http://www.celticknot.org.uk/). His Blog article can be found here and is worth reading: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/06/murder-and-mayhem-in-the-world.html

Since then the full story can be found on community care (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/06/18/111871/agencies-rapped-over-murder-conspiracy-social-worker.html and the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html).

Top marks however to Allan Norman in his blog who rightly tries to draw a balance on the issues of the right of the public to know these facts (and the consequential further battering social care will get in the press) with the further possible consequence that the right to be rehabilitated under the rehabilitation of offenders act will be harmed.

At the root of this matter, it seems to me, is the fact that there was a very unhappy team who (reading between the lines of some reports) felt intimidated by Barnes who was initially employed as a assistant team manager and later team manager – where were the more senior managers and what were they doing in the interim before it took some brave junior social worker to voice her concerns? It does not look good in terms of developing a safe and professional working environment where the lives of children and families are paramount. Had there been such a safe environment perhaps Barnes may have not been able to operate with, what is implied, intimidation, and ultimately deceit not only to the Court and all its parties but also to the social work profession.

The High Court judgement on the application not to name Barnes is set out here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2009/B11.html and is again worth a full read.

To date there is nothing (as usual) on the GSCC website relating to this matter although they too were criticised (along with Bath and North East Somerset Council) in their failings to allow Barnes to be registered as a social worker. My cynicism (but also based on much research) suggests to me that the GSCC will never publish themselves any criticism of the GSCC. They have however made a statement reported by Community Care in their article, essentially saying that Barnes was already employed, had good references and after the passage of time could be considered rehabilitated – for once, that seems not an unreasonable response for the GSCC.

What was however is alarming is that in the Independent report (see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murderplot-social-workers-cases-reviewed-1707629.html) it was revealed that the NSPCC were to verify by way of its own investigations the confirmation of the local authority that Barnes involvement in other Court case matters had not (in effect) led to any miscarriages of justice. That I find ironic in the extreme as the NSPCC are the least qualified to adjudicate on such matters, especially (but not exclusively) following the Climbe review where they themselves were found to have ‘doctored’ evidence in order to try to cover up failings in practice – essentially that which Barnes is accused of!

At the time (of the Inquiry) it was widely reported that the NSPCC had to be forced to produce ‘original’ documents for scrutiny after initially submitting photocopy paperwork heavily ‘redacted.’ And guess what, the photocopy evidence and the original paperwork, when finally grabbed from the NSPCC, were somewhat and significantly different – in short they attempted to mislead a Court of Inquiry. There are numerous articles in the press but I think the following is the best by Dea Birkett in her Gaurdian Article in 2002: (http://www.deabirkett.com/pages/journalism_film/journalism/it_needs_to_be_stopped.htm)

She gives a good account of the NSPCC cynical approach, incompetence and self serving attitude whilst giving the very false impression of being the guardians of child welfare – more like guardian of our pay packets. And what have the GSCC done about this – nothing. And anyone expects the NSPCC to be competent in auditing others while it cannot audit itself. Gawd help the social care profession. Gawd help children.

Barnes appears to be one of those who as a profession we regret having allowed into our ranks. She is, or will be gone, but she has done so much damage to our profession. Shame on you an good bye.

Wilt