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

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

One wondered where the case of Sharon Shoesmith had gone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8599016.stm

The BBC and others have obtained the papers submitted by Ofsted and after Easter the Court is expected to rule on her applications against Ed Balls, Ofsted and Haringey.

The Guardian has a fuller and  better article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/01/baby-p-sharon-shoesmith-beefed

Scary stuff – and you know what, I have no doubt of foul play in this matter as Christine Gilbert (Ofsted) is a wanker and Balls a complete bully. At Least the CSCI (Care Standards Commission) and Behan stood up for standards (e.g. Mrs C matter) in inspection, and its independence – and told Plaskett MP to go play in the sand dunes.

As yet no news in Community Care!

Meanwhile Guido has posted on the prospects of Ed (Damien) Balls prospects of keeping his seat, here: http://order-order.com/2010/03/31/punters-slash-odds-ed-balls-now-expected-to-lose/

If he loses his seat it will be drinks on Wilt

Wilt

As per my earlier posting (see here: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2010/02/bit-of-a-spat/) the lawyers have struck back, and rightly so.

Half Time Score:-

BASW 0 – 2 GSCC

See the Community Care Magazine article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/08/113752/barristers-reject-basw-claim-of-ignorance-among-free-lawyers.htm

Personally, if I needed help I would get a lawyer – even if I needed to re-mortgage my house. Although having some notable success in some cases, BASW on the whole have not yet established themselves as fully up to speed and despite their “Professional Indemnity Insurance” scheme I have yet to hear of a case involving the GSCC where that has been used – it was notably lacking (and criticised) in the case of dear Lisa Arthurworrey.

Perhaps Wilt could act as a referee in this game? Mmmmmmmm.

And, as if BASW needs any further bad publicity, one of its own (former) officers needed some help in a Conduct case – we wonder if they had a Full Time BASW Advice and Mediation Officer to help them before being delivered a three year admonishment?

See the article here:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/08/113750/ex-basw-officer-reprimanded-for-giving-misleading-evidence.htm

Oooooooops!

Final Score:-

BASW 0 – 1 Care Council for Wales

You could not make it up, really!  And here I am meant to be keeping the regulators in check – Wilt slaps his own face saying “stupid boy.”

Unless the GSCC and others continue to be stupid I am going to complain that they ruining my burgeoning second career as a web journalist – well OK bog basic blogger!  One has to say BASW are at risk of being relegated to “Dork” status unless they improve their game.

BASW have this article here: http://basw.tumblr.com/post/352488674/basw-online-exclusive-most-social-workers-choose-not Does not say anything about their success or failure rate, nor the criticism of BASW by the Care Standards Tribunal (CST – Lisa Arthurworrey) or indeed overall the number of social workers reinstated by the same Tribunal.

However having five full time officers will no doubt improve the service and, somewhat VERY belatedly address the concerns they themselves identify in the Conduct process.

However take their new look web page as pure advertising for now (you can only use the service if a member – after a period of time) to help increase membership of BASW. I will judge them on their performance in actual practice. To date that has been very mixed.

Wilt

I suppose the lady was lucky not to be a social worker – I suspect none of the Regulators (e.g. the GSCC) would have allowed her to continue to practice. See the BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8486936.stm

Why are there such differences in how Regulators dispose of cases? Quite remarkable really!

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

No wonder Wilt has such a high tax bill and why this economy is in such a ferkin mess. The Telegraph reports today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6066181/NHS-staff-paid-overtime-when-off-sick.html

NHS staff are getting paid overtime while off sick!

For Gawd sake, beam me up Scotty and please stop the world and let me get off. What is wrong with these people? Here are some quotes from the article:

“The generous terms mean that when they are on sick leave they receive full pay, plus a selection of benefits. These include supplements for unsocial hours and overtime for six months, with half pay for a further six.”

“The deal means when an NHS worker – such as an ambulance worker, nurse, porter, or midwife – goes off sick they are paid according to an average of their total pay for the previous three months, rather than just their basic salary.”

“In many cases, workers have boosted their income by working nights or extra hours, or are paid a ‘recruitment and retention’ bonus, which can add tens of thousands of pounds to the basic salary of a middle grade worker living in London.”

And what exactly is the justification for this, someone please explain?

“However, supporters said NHS workers are exposed to unique pressures, with 56,000 physically attacked each year, and they deserve to be looked after.”

The article observers:

“The Telegraph has received allegations of NHS workers asking managers when their six months on full pay expires so they know when to return to work, people booking holidays and then taking sick leave to cover the time off, and posting photographs on Facebook of themselves out with their children while off sick.”

And:

“In the private sector, standard sick leave normally includes a short period on full pay, around one month or six weeks, followed by statutory sick pay paid at £79.15 per week for people earning £95 or more. In many cases employees are automatically put on statutory sick pay, once they qualify – which is when they have been off sick for four days.”

And:

“The Health Service terms and conditions also eclipse other areas of the public sector: police receive full pay for six months and then half pay for a further six, but do not receive any overtime. Teachers get full pay for 25 days off sick then half pay for 75 days in their first year, rising to 20 weeks’ full pay and 20 weeks on half pay after four years working.”

And:

“This is taxpayers’ money. The NHS has the expertise to get people back to work but they just do not use it on their own staff.”

This is outrageous – this has to change, together with the conditions of service for all local government, civil service and quango staff.  No wonder Wilt is so poor.

As well as the contrast with the private sector a further comparison needs to be drawn with those who run a small business or the self-employed – who (unless they pay for private insurance) get paid sod all when off sick, take a holiday and in most cases there is no such thing as overtime or extra rates for bank holiday or other unsocial hours.

These people are taking the piss, big time.

Wilt (grrrr)