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

Back again – though not for long, again. The Wilt is off to North Wales with Salty Dog, Mrs Wilt and co.

Wilt has been working down in the “smoke” on a joint project with his mate from Salop and very lucrative and enjoyable it was too, thank you very much.

Anyway – a few days at home and thereabouts with more local work and then a huge number of court directions and final hearings for months to come (with the break to sail the final bit to Malta).

This last week however there have been some developments on the Blog. First Mrs C of Leamington Spa has disappeared as in a puff of smoke. Either she has fallen off a cliff (we can but wish), is masquerading under some new ISP (we will discover her eventually) or she has just given up or gone on holiday or attending some addiction clinic. Possibly, as Mr Plaskitt thinks she is a bit nutty, she could be being detained somewhere against her will. We hope the lobotomy works, provided they can find a brain to work on!

Anyway, talking of Plaskitt (and lobotomy) – he has again emerged from his bunker and raised another query in Parliament, as set out here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-03-23a.323141.h&s=plaskitt#g323141.q0

Wilt and others had to think very hard and long to wonder what he may have been getting at precisely.

We were lost to understand what he was after – surely it could not be connected with Mrs C, the CSCI or any personal (private) compensation awards made to individuals associated with Mrs C’s sordid and dark past; surely not? Not connected with the fact that Mrs C has been told by the Care Quality Commission to sling her hook, dive overboard or otherwise piss off when she, in her rather bully girl fashion, “demanded” I want to know what compensation these people were paid.

Nah, Plaskitt of Dunes, could note surely find the time in his busy schedule to deal with the facile odd and distorted matter of the “discontent” of Leamington Spa – with  a serious distortion of mind. Nah, we concluded he must have bigger issues to deal with, like the budget, the state of the nation, his unsafe/marginal seat, the state of social care and the total fucking mess he created when he was a minister.

Perhaps he is for once doing something useful?

We gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, in the mean time a friend of Wilt spoke with Mr & Mrs H of Oxfordshire. He commented to Mr & Mrs H on the rather nice “wheels” (a real, real nice 4X4) that graces the drive of their mansion. He bemoaned the fact that their “wheels” were rather more superior to his. “Ah well”, said Mr & Mrs H – “our compensation was larger than yours” and added “we are thinking of getting a boat with the remainder of the settlement.” His response is unrepeatable even here on Regulator Watch!

I have no fucking idea what they were going on about, any more than what basket case Plaskitt goes on about.

What however is clear, Plaskitt was again, nicely, told to go away and stop making a fucking nuisance of himself. It seems he, and some others of Leamington Spa, are just pissing into the wind – yuck! Damp knickers and stained trousers, which is what I had when I pissed myself laughing at their hopeless efforts. Utter twats.

It is keeping Wilt and various others chuckling. Somehow I do not think Wilt will end up on Plaskitt’s Xmas card list.

Wilt

It seems the GSCC are becoming a little more thoughtful and considered in their judgements as is evidenced in this case, http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/09/114008/lancashire-family-support-agency-worker-admonished.htm which is further encouraging of their newly found proportional response. It is in contrast of course to more historical cases, not least in relation to Arthurworrey as one example, where clearly they were out to earn their spurs and prove to the Government that they were worthy of their existence – a history littered with despicable and outrageous attitudes.

Whilst there are signs of improvement we have not yet removed them from the Dork List and of course we must not let them become complacent. They are of course fighting for their existence at the moment and are effectively still under special measures.

We are still watching.

Wilt

Whether it is local government or central government bodies (including quango) the realities of cutbacks, reducing outrageous perks and job slashing is becoming a daily headline. From the Government perspective it is reducing waste (which they created – mostly by Gordon) and the Conservatives which is remodelled as doing more for less. They are different sides of the same coin, except the Conservatives (rightly) would reduce public expenditure with or without a major budget deficit. Here is but one example:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/09/114010/efficiency-savings-could-lead-to-bigger-council-cuts-warn-directors.htm

and here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7056366.ece

My mate, who is a senior Conservative figure in the local Council, (and indeed other Councillors or all political colours in other areas) are explicit that cutbacks are possible without major effects upon so called “frontline” services. And posts (if not staff on the payroll) will very shortly no longer exist.

However, such cutbacks need to be combined with a reduction in expectations and paperwork (and culling a few quango entirely whilst combining others) as in rejecting aspects of Laming’s (Baby P) recommendations as essentially well intentioned but distorting of the role of social workers, as outlined in this article:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/10/114013/scrap-lamings-social-work-assessment-plans-says-lga.htm

and this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8558463.stm

Wilt once shared a stage with Laming (shortly after the latter retired) in giving a conference speech and met him later at another event – nice guy but (despite how he portrays himself) not very much of this world. He was after all a former senior Whitehall mandarin who although thoughtful, caring and hard working was and remains slightly unworldly and not grounded in the realities of modern social work.

When Wilt was a fledgling social worker the job was not easy but today he would, if starting out anew, be seriously challenged – it is only a wise old head and the ability to select what work he does which allows him to practice with a level of competence, partly as a auditor/inspector, occasional interim manager, tribunal member, children’s guardian and professional (“expert”) witness. Going back to the frontline of children and families work would be very hard, and I probably would not (at my time in life) quite come up to expectations.

Laming should perhaps reflect on his position as should his successor Dame Denise, both of whom were in fact good Social Services Inspectorate Chief Inspectors (and Denise also the former Chair of the former CSCI). However, it is Laming, hailed as the oracle of children’s social care, who needs to get a grip on avoiding the confusion where one cannot see the wood for the trees.

He is as indicated, well intentioned but lacking the recent knowledge of what it is like on the frontline.

He and Wilt, along with some other bloggers, however share a common status – those who can do, those who can’t teach!

At least Wilt is self deprecating in good British fashion. He read recently the reason for this British characteristic – it is because Britons have a long history whereupon they can self deprecate in the full knowledge that they have a long cultural/historical deposit to call upon, whilst others (like the USA) are still developing their history and as such continue to fly the flag and deny even the most obvious errors.

That reminds me of the GSCC – their history is not exactly littered with huge success, rather their efforts to fly their own flag. Perhaps, also similar to both Laming and that twat Ferkin Balls – the latter the demonic reincarnation of Damien.

Hard times and hard decisions ahead.

Wilt

The CCW (Care Council for Wales) who are the equivalent of the GSCC have made a 5 year admonishment of a former Barnardo’s worker for fiddling his expenses, as set out in this Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/11/113775/ccw-admonishes-welsh-social-worker-for-dishonest-behaviour.htm

Naughty boy, but then he has had a good example to follow in our dishonourable MPs. Was he prosecuted we wonder?

Meanwhile the Scottish Nationalist Party and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has advocated to a Court in Edinburgh that her constituent Abdul Rauf should not be imprisoned for fraudulent claims of state benefits amounting to £80, 000 whilst owning a property worth £200,000 (which he rented out) and lived in a further property worth £400,000. It also emerges that Mr Rauf had a previous conviction for fraud (£60,000) and was sentenced to four years in prison. Obviously the TWAT does not lean and is simply a greedy bastard.

See the BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8510133.stm

Ms Sturgeon pleads that the man is married with children under 10 years of age and has already paid back £27,000 of his fraudulent claims.

I suppose it is our fault, we elect these fools. I am growing in my opinion that these frauds, when they are locked up, should be made to pay for their upkeep i prison – a bit medieval but it reduces my tax bill.

Also in the news is the new IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) who will cost us ££6.5M per year to employ 80 staff – that equates to £8, 250 per employee. Obviously that will include accommodation, National Insurance, Pension and other “on costs” but it still seems a bit steep. Do they really need 80 staff? I think not.

See the Telegraph article here:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7211733/MPs-expenses-watchdog-will-cost-6.5m-and-employ-80-staff.html

Also note that the Chairman of the IPSA (http://www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/) Sir Ian Kennedy is on a three day a week £100,000 per year contract and whilst in his previous role with the Healthcare Commission as Chairman run up taxi expenses of £15,000!

Is this the right person for the job, we wonder? Gawd help us. Only Gordon Brown could have made this appointment – what a TWAT!

As yet no comment on this that I can find from Guido (http://order-order.com/) – he must be down the pub. I will join him shortly.

Also remember, the Healthcare Commission became the Care Quality Council – ex the NCSC and CSCI. Their website is here: http://www.cqc.org.uk/

If you want to apply to join the new IPSA, go here: http://www.theipsa.co.uk/microsite/index.asp

My application is in the post……….

Wilt

To further recap: (This Is Part 4)

Mrs C was, with Plaskitt MP, did whatever they could to destroy Happen Fostercare or “Happiness” as referred to in the Spectator article, here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3061606/after-baby-p-the-crisis-in-child-foster-care.thtml#comments

that was published in December 2008 – not that the Spectator did anything else other than meet a total stranger on a train station platform and report her side of the facts. Was “Tom, Dick or Harriett” asked their opinion – well no, of course because Mary Wakefield seemingly, according to some reports, has a bit of a fixation with big black folders and no journalistic talents, or at least she (Mary Wakefield) was just lazy and incompetent.

Well, that was December 2008 – Mrs C (her of the big black folder) was by this stage desperate to find a new audience – indeed anyone who might listen to here.

Let us return however to four years earlier………..

Plaskitt MP in the autumn of 2004 delivered his now infamous and shameful speech to the House of Commons and a certain David Cameron (then a relatively unknown MP) intervened on behalf of his constituents, the Directors of Happen Fostercare. It was a shameful exploitation by Plaskitt of Parliamentary privilege, naming and shaming all and sundry but at the same time protecting the identity of his “constituent” who in later press articles and in the CSCI Internal Review Report was identified as Mrs C.

Hansard Plaskitt 15 Sept 2004

csci-report-part1 AND

csci-report-part2 AND

csci-report-part3

The Plaskitt (utterly shameful and cowardly) speech was widely reported in the press, without of course, any opportunity for any of the individuals or Happen Fostercare having an opportunity to comment.  Odd, since Mrs C complains she is not afforded any voice! Hmmmmm.

Identifying Mrs C is not difficult – by her MPs admission she is both a constituent and a foster carer – she therefore lives in Warwick/Leamington Spa. She was previously a foster carer with Happen Fostercare and (among other avatars) has been named in the press as Mrs C or Ms A. So reader, and Wilt knows many of you already know, it does not take a lot to know who this individual is, especially among those numerous agencies she frequently contacts i.e. GSCC, Ofsted etc., etc. Yet she complains of having been “outed” by others, harassed even – Mmmmmmm.

The outcome of the press reports (added to the circulation of the flawed/unlawful Judy Downey report widely circulated by Mrs C) was for Happen Fostercare to experience extreme prejudice and a shying away by local authorities to use their services. Why? Quite simply local authorities aim to minimise their liability and cognisant of that fact both Mrs C and Dork Plaskitt MP intended that be the outcome – in short to destroy Happen Fostercare in order to recover or retain the status of Mrs C. What status you ask – well that is a good question?  All will be revealed.

Happen Fostercare (“Happiness” in Spectator speak) had by the time of the Plaskitt debacle complained of the unfair treatment afforded them by the Regulator – like being investigated but not interviewed and the Regulator (in the form of its predecessor the NCSC) providing Mrs C with a report (which Happen knew nothing about) and consequently were blissfully ignorant of. Yes Ms Downey, Dork of the profession, which was you – we wonder if she is GSCC Registered?

Happen Fostercare (and again I reiterate it is not the agency which exists today) had a hell of a time. Mrs C and basket Case Plaskitt (not much longer to be an MP with a curious eating disorder based on his claims for food on his expenses) created absolute fucking havoc at huge public expense, which even at that time was a dead issue. Now, my mate “Paul”, looked on in horror at all this – his heart sank when seeing the plight of the Henderson’s and could not believe that this Mrs C and her TWAT MP could be allowed to get away with such fucking nonsense. The impact on the individuals was devastating, and that of course is what was intended – Mrs C was going to destroy them, and at the same time illustrate to the world that she was little Ms perfect victimised by others. That is what she would like people to believe. Read on – get the facts.

This was now late 2004/early 2005. “Paul” continued to have occasional work from Happen Fostercare on various pieces of work – just to remind you “Paul” acted (at least tried to) as a mediator between Mrs C and Happen Fostercare in 2002. Instead Mrs C “copped out” and ran away, she hoped, to another IFA (Independent Fostering Agency) but in fact ended up with a Midlands local authority. By this time Mrs C had an acceptance of responsibility for failure to disclose relevant facts from Northamptonshire County Council, and they gave her a written apology (in 2002). So what the fuck was the issue remaining in 2004? What possessed this DORK to continue with her complaints?

Madness? That is the widely – and I mean widely – held view (ask any at the GSCC, Ofsted, DH etc., etc.) among most.  Evilness? That has a minority view but it is equally compelling. Probably it is a mixture of the two. Either way, she is persistent as evidenced by her reports (with the assistance of oddball Plaskitt) to the press and complaints up to this day in 2010 – 8 years later. And there is no sign of her giving up.

Anyway, in late 2004 our man “Paul” who is an excellent social worker was appointed, by competitive interview, as the Independent Chairman of both a local authority Adoption Panel and Fostering Panel – it transpired to be the local authority who had registered Mrs C in 2002 after she departed Happen Fostercare. Realising this connection, “Paul” gave a voluntary written declaration of a potential conflict of interest and resolved that he would always stand down as Chairman whenever an agenda item concerning Mrs C appeared. That seems very reasonable to me.

Up until this time “Paul” had no contact with Mrs C (since early 2002) and quite frankly had no desire to do so given his knowledge of her persistent harassment of Happen Fostercare, with the help of basket Case Plaskitt MP. She had hitherto and up until that point not regarded “Paul” as either relevant or even circumstantial to her case against Happen Fostercare, so “peripheral” and inconsequential was his involvement. He was not mentioned by Plaskitt in his disgraceful speech to the House of Commons, nor had she complained about “Paul.” So, nothing to worry about then? Wrong, big time!

Within weeks the (mad/evil –depending on your perspective) Mrs C had made a complaint to the GSCC of “Paul’s” appointment as Independent Chairman! Why, well that is of little mystery as facts further unfold but at the time Paul was not aware of the complaint and as matters transpired it withered away and amounted to nothing, until Mrs C found the energy to make a more substantial complaint in the following year (and in the interim attempted to convince a host of well known agencies – in some cases convincingly – to believe “Paul” was a “fraud”, dishonest, unprofessional, falsified his credentials/experience and was in cahoots with Happen Fostercare to destroy her as a foster carer. This being odd as “Paul” did everything possible to distance himself from this evil bastard.

However, just before the SECOND complaint to the GSCC “Paul” started to receive “threatening” unprovoked fax and letters from Mrs C, and these are published here:

Mrs C Letters 2005

These are not redacted in any way other than to exclude the address of the parties and their names – unlike Mrs C we prefer to protect identities and respect private life. Mrs C however identifies herself – make of her attitude and approach as you will. We think it rather revealing of her attitude. And as Winston Churchill illustrated, attitude is a small thing with potential for big consequences, and rather telling of the individual.

Now “Paul” was utterly baffled – he was accused of making disingenuous comments about Mrs C and circulating them. Mrs C was WRONG on both accounts as will be illustrated later in the ongoing release of data via this blog.

This is now 2005 – Mrs C (or as she truly can be identified in her letters to “Paul”) is reliably determined to be mother earth and sole adjudicator on matters well beyond her competence to even sniff at, let alone judge. Not that different from the GSCC who will feature greatly in the next chapter of this very sad story – and the GSCC now regard Mrs C (somewhat belatedly) as “vexatious”. Now, where have I heard that description before? Was it the CSCI – YES! Perhaps SMBC – YES! Possibly everyone else in private – YES! Is it true – YES! And did a certain gentleman from the GSCC say “Do not quote me but she [Mrs C] is vexatious” – YES!

We will leave it here for now, Part 5 of Mrs C and the GSCC to follow shortly. In it you will find “Paul’s” reply to Mrs C –and it pulled no punches.

Wilt (in collaboration with numerous others)

Wilt has had an interesting letter (actually an email) from the information commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint about access to personal data via the website www.regulatorwatch.co.uk.

As you should be aware, the Information Commissioner enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The DPA has eight principles of ‘good information handling’. These give people specific rights in relation to their personal information and put certain obligations on those organisations that are responsible for processing it.

Under section 42 of the DPA an individual can ask the Commissioner to conduct an ‘assessment’, that is, give a view as to whether it is likely or unlikely that an organisation has complied with the DPA in the situation that has been described to us. We are treating this complaint as a request for assessment.

If we consider it is unlikely that an organisation has complied with the DPA our aim is to ensure that the organisation understands its obligations and takes any steps necessary to help ensure compliance with the principles either in that particular case or in the future.

It appears there is a posting on www.regulatorwatch.co.uk entitled “Hansard stuff and Mrs C” dated 13 November 2009. Reference is made in the posting to “Happen Files” as a source material. Our complainant believes this refers to confidential files in relation to an organisation called Happen Fostercare Ltd. Among other things, the posting states:-

“But you will need password access to those. Very revealing indeed, we know. Apply to Wilt for password”.

This statement indicates that the files in question are not available to anyone and there may be some sort of vetting process via the moderator of the site before a password to access the relevant information is provided. However, the situation and procedure regarding access to these files is not entirely clear.

The Seventh Data Protection Principle states that:-

“Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data”.

I do not yet have enough information to assess whether www.regulatorwatch.co.uk is likely to have complied with the requirements of the Seventh Data Protection Principle in this case. I would, therefore, be grateful if you could answer the following questions so I can make my assessment:

1.      Please confirm whether or not the “Happen Files” are confidential files in relation to Happen Fostercare Ltd.

2.      If so, please explain why www.regulatorwatch.co.uk has access to this information and what criteria individuals wanting to access the information need to satisfy in order to obtain a password.

I would appreciate it if you could provide a reply within 28 days of the date of this email. If you are unable to do so, please let me know when you will be in a position to provide it. If you need any more information about this matter, please let me know.

Finally you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework.  Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong.  It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

When you reply to this letter, I would be grateful if you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it.  I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure.  You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Casework & Advice Officer

Tel: 01625 545 758.

Dear XXXXXXXXXXX

Well Mr Commissioner here is your answer.

First, we did notice you taking a look at Regulator Watch, and we hoped you enjoyed it.

We wonder who may have complained – was it Mrs C or Plaskitt MP who wish the records of Mrs C to be cleansed?  We think you need to examine what exactly Mrs C has put in the public domain herself, supplying file upon file of confidential and personal data to numerous agencies and the media. Indeed misleading and sometimes false data, we would add.

However, that is a matter for you.

Mrs C visits the Blog Regulator Watch three times a day usually – she is obsessed, and that would be putting it mildly.

She complains to her MP, who complains to the House of Commons (who point him to you), to the police who know not who regulator watch is nor it seems cares I am advised as there is nothing unlawful in expressing opinions, and to Ofsted who although frequent visitors to the website are acting beyond their powers – we think the latter need to concentrate on getting their own house in order, especially when it comes to lost files (down the back of filing cabinets) relating to Sharon Shoesmith (of Baby P fame). Of course Mrs C also complains (about the wrong person) to the GSCC who anyway find nothing wrong with the website Regulator Watch and we hate to think who else – Milk Marketing Board possibly?

Hence, you are left with the problem – lucky you!

We hope you liked the website – thousands do judging by traffic reports.

Despite the fact that Regulator Watch is NOT AN ORGANISATION nor is Wilt REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED AS A DATA CONTOLLER I will however indulge you, in public, with an answer to your query.

All data held and/or published on the Regulator Watch website (password protected or not) is already either in the public domain, released under the FOI Act or personal to individuals who have either released it to Regulator Watch and in some instances contained in public court proceedings.  Therefore whoever has access to data (password protected or not) is irrelevant.

The area on the website (password protected) “Happen Files” is a private area and access to which is entirely at my discretion – was that you the other day from Warrington writing to me asking for a password to help with your PhD research? Warrington I think is quite close to the ICO? Naughty boy?

Wilt gets up early in the morning – so do not try to play silly games with him.

“Happen Files” contains nothing which as outlined above is not already public or released under FOI requests or otherwise released from personal files voluntarily by the individuals concerned.

As you were seeking the “Fisher Report” or “Fisher” (as in ex-police officer Dennis Fisher on behalf of Northamptonshire Council) whilst on our website (www.regulatorwatch.co.uk) you will have found nothing relating to it on Regulator Watch. We understand however that your complainant is very desperate to keep this out of the public domain. We wonder why?

Anyway, dear Commissioner, have fun. Best wishes to Mrs C and odd fellow Plaskitt MP – you know that thieving MP soon to become ex MP of his constituency in Warwickshire. Good luck with Mrs C and God bless you – you will needs Gods help with her. But then you already know that, we understand.

Yours sincerely,

Wilt

ps: how is the weather in Warrington and Cheshire – is Opal (TalkTalk) a good package? Personally I use XXXXXX and they are excellent.

Ofsted (yesterday) were all over the Regulator watch website like a rash. Judging by the specific articles they accessed it is quite obviously (again) in response to Mrs C and or Plaskitt MP harassing them.

Ah well, such is life and we know of course that the organisation is so bloated that it has time to act at the behest of Mrs C/Plaskitt even though Ofsted has no remit. As per the “Storm in a Teacup” article, commenting on MP Plaskitt’s pathetic efforts, to cleanse the records relating to Mrs C (e.g. those which do not fit his/her mindset) speech in the House of Commons, the matter is “without” the scope of the Regulator. So why do they continue?

Is Regulator Watch regulated –No!

Is Wilt in a Regulated provision – No!

Is Wilt regulated – No!

Is Ofsted wasting public funds? A BIG YES! Indeed it is unlawful. Do they not learn the lessons of the NCSC and CSCI? Did not the CSCI have serious discussions about Mrs C with Ofsted to “warn” them that the woman would next try to engage them in mind boggling and utterly pointless historical concerns long since dead, like the Monty Python parrot? YES, they were warned, in detail.

Wilt thinks it’s about time David Cameron was alerted to this time wasting.

Whitehall Willy I think about got the measure in his comment here (see item 15): http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2009/12/who-is-wilt/

Does this woman have nothing else to do? What a life! Twat!

Wilt

Ofsted are also back in the news – that agency Barry Sheerrman MP loves to hate. He lambasts the quality and competence of inspectors in this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8443890.stm and argues that its remit is now far too large. Maybe Ofsted will be going (in terms of social care) the same way as the CSCI and the NCSC before it.

Something has to give. Christine Gilbert and Ofsted now attract such poor media attention and are at risk of, like the GSCC, being put under special measures. My inside information from Ofsted indicates that since Gilbert arrived the staff morale has plummeted, even without Mrs C and Dork Plaskitt MP on their case.

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