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

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

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

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

Oooooops, the GSCC have again made another cock up, as determined by the Care Standards Tribunal. The adjudication can be found here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1088 It involves:

• Evidence of delay by the GSCC
• Simple lack of investigation (not even an incompetent one)
• No proper weighing of the “public safety” test (at all it seems) against the “interests of the registrant”
• No proper consideration of proportionality of their decision

Unfortunately the GSCC get a slapped wrist and told to “do better next time.” Ah but will they? We will see.

There is, it seems to Wilt, a long history of the GSCC showing “previous form” e.g. they are recidivists. They have this terrible habit of forgetting that it is for them the burden to prove guilt – they simply find it easier to take the approach of “guilty until proven innocent.” It’s a lot simpler for them – never mind the poor registrant.

That is particularly true in another recent Care Standards Tribunal finding, below.

In a separate Case http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1086 yet again the GSCC get a “clip around the ear. In one sense one could understand the GSCC exercising caution but the case illustrates three things:

• Delay (again)
• Lack of investigation/analysis skills, AND
• Prejudice

This judgement, carefully weighed up as usual by the Care Standards Tribunal, is well worth a read.

Now these cases do stem back to the time when the GSCC were experiencing, it is reported, exceptional difficulties. It was, more to the point under the old management of the disgraced Mike Wardle, albeit the concerns outlined in these two recent case examples can be found in other cases from well before he was there – he was just a useful scapegoat.

Wilt has observed hitherto he is hopeful for the new management at the GSCC (if they survive at all) – I hope this is not the start of another long list of GSCC failures.

Wilt

You see, Gove has not forgotten us – not just yet anyway: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/03/114637/gove-promises-support-for-taskforce-recommendations.htm

I aint too sure however that Community Care can be so assertive as they are in this advice: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/06/03/114638/q-and-a-what-does-the-national-college-mean-for-social-workers.htm that the Social Work College could not become the Regulator to replace the GSCC (http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/).

The article was written before the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England (http://www.gtce.org.uk/ ) by Mr Gove and as set out by the GTCE in their press release: http://www.gtce.org.uk/media_parliament/news_comment/gtcabolition0610/

The Regulation and Registration function of the GTCE will be assumed by some other body, so the General Social Care Council is not yet in the clear. If the teaching council can be abolished, so can the social work equivalent.

It is not true that all professions have a separate “college” or membership group from the regulatory and disciplinary functions. What exactly is the conflict in one single organisation promoting and supporting professionals whilst also investigating serious complaints? In my mind the two fit together snugly.

The options are however wide open – albeit to be fair the GSCC of late (under new leadership) appears to be getting its act together a bit more. However the trail of absolute disasters it has left behind through utter incompetence (and having been placed under special measures) has left few if any believing that the organisation is anything other an embarrassment.

My prediction – they will go too and their function of Registration will go somewhere else. There are too many of these Regulators and there is both an economy of scale and similar role and function argument in favour of mergers.

Time will tell……………

Wilt

ps: The same arguments and observations go for the SSSC, CCW and NISCC – however they are outside of the English jurisdiction and will determine their own futures.

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

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

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