Given the pending demise of the GSCC you would be right to be curious as to why, at some unknown expense, they have undertaken a major makeover of their website here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/page/1/Home.html and especially so when there are major budget cuts – it does look better however.
And furthermore the GSCC seem to be wasting our good tax money in making utterly irrational decisions regarding registrants only to have them, very embarrassingly, overturned by the Care Standards Tribunal. There have been several examples again in recent months but take a look at this one, concerning children’s guardian and expert witness Jaswinder Singh Bains. Community Care gave a reasonably good account here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/01/13/116097/gscc-may-have-breached-social-workers-human-rights.htm in an article titled “GSCC may have breached social worker’s human rights.”
“May have” as a term is a bit of a misnomer – this guy had his rights completely overlooked. The competence of these people beggars belief. Whereas the Community Care article gives a flavour, you really should read the CST full finding here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1131
Here are some choice remarks from this excellent tribunal.
“We have asked ourselves whether the Appellant followed a proper process in dealing with his application to renew his registration or whether it was flawed as the Appellant suggested. Mr Bains applied in the normal way following preliminary enquiries as to what was expected of him and he ticked the relevant boxes. We believe that, in the absence of any issues arising in the 3 years since his initial registration, he had an entirely reasonable and legitimate expectation that his application would be dealt with in the normal way.”
That much is clear then……………
“In these circumstances, we find it difficult to understand why the Respondent did not draw the conclusion that its inability to produce any evidence to counter these assertions inevitably meant it would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain its argument against renewal of his registration. It seems to have relied instead upon the inexorability of its own processes.”
Ooooops, things are beginning to fall apart for the respondent case (the GSCC).
“The 2010 Notice of Decision makes it clear that the Registration Committee looked solely at the client letter as evidence of the Appellant’s compliance with the original condition. This demonstrated the Committee had no understanding that the original condition encompassed an oral explanation, despite the fact that this was information in the possession of the Respondent’s officers. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s officers told the Committee there had been any discussion about the condition at the time it was imposed and therefore the ‘policy’ was not simply the letter alone.”
Sorry Guv, we overlooked this vital evidence…………..
The term “Dork” is coming to mind. The other term is “utter fucking pillocks.”
“We have concluded that the 2010 Registration Committee was not party to all the relevant facts on which to base a reasoned and reasonable decision. Therefore we can only conclude that their decision was fundamentally flawed.”
Wilt being a bit thick wonders what is meant by “fundamentally” and “flawed?” Can anyone advise?
“We are troubled by the length of time taken by the Respondent to arrive at a decision in this case. Mr Bains’ application was dated 3 August 2009 and it took the Respondent until February 2010 to make any progress. It was still asking him for more information at this point despite its earlier apology for the error in telling him he could not work. Thereafter it was obliged to issue a further apology for saying it had not got information the Appellant had clearly already sent. It is undoubtedly true that the Respondent had considerable problems in the initial stages of implementing its new regulatory functions in 2006 that resulted in delay and frustration, which was experienced by Mr Bains at first hand in his initial application – and he was not the only one. But this is no excuse for the apparently chaotic, inaccurate and slow process followed by the Respondent in 2009.”
The trouble with the CST is they use big words like “no excuse”, “chaotic” and “inaccurate.” Do these mean they do not have a first fucking clue? Mmmmm, Wilt must go back to school.
The following quote has other big words like “abdication of responsibility” and human rights:
“Furthermore, this process appears to have been flawed. The Respondent said it had no option but to recommend refusal because Mr Bains was guilty of non-compliance and had not responded to their requests for information. On the basis of that initial error, it continued to pursue a path to refusal and to pass the decision to the Committee with that recommendation. If it is true that the Respondent has, or had, a policy to refer applications to the Committee with an automatic recommendation for refusal, it would seem a strange practice for a regulatory body to follow. Such a procedure might appear to amount to an abdication of responsibility and in circumstances where the Committee does not know it has insufficient evidence and does not fully record the evidence it does receive, that lays the Respondent open to the argument that there is potentially a breach of Article 6.”
Fucking mind boggling only this complicated stuff, but I think it means that the GSCC are total morons, both Committee and especially its staff. Mind you Wilt is a simple minded soul despite his Oxbridge education and could be wrong.
Anyway, there is more to come:
“It is arguable that perhaps since 2003 and certainly since 2005, the Appellant has experienced several years of somewhat tortuous processes that have proved beyond his ability to control or to influence despite his best efforts. Both CAFCASS and the Respondent have placed him under considerable pressure, firstly in respect of criminal allegations that proved to be false and thereafter by CAFCASS’ pursuit of allegations about his working practices, which became the basis for his suitability to be registered as a social worker. The Respondent, prompted by CAFCASS, then decided to address any lingering doubts by negotiating the terms of a condition on his registration. On the face of it, unusual though it was, and still is, to require an individual social worker to produce and maintain a confidentiality policy, it ought to have been a relatively straightforward step. Instead, it resulted 3 years later in a prolonged process of investigation by the Respondent characterised by inadequate record keeping, failures in communication, a lack of knowledge and understanding by its officers and a decision taken by a Committee based on that flawed approach.”
I must apply for a job with the GSCC – it sounds like a good place to work. You can be as stupid as you like, waste time and other people’s money and take the piss out of both the law and the public. And, get paid for it and earn a pension – fucking brilliant. My dearly departed father would be proud of me if he were still alive.
But there are even better things:
“A regulatory body must take a proper evidence based approach to its functions and its decision-making, ensuring that the reasons for the decisions it reaches are entirely transparent. It also needs to take particular care to exercise its functions in a proportionate, fair and independent manner given the power it has been given to control professional status. It needs to demonstrate that it has not been unduly swayed by the views or approach of another public body with different functions. It is a matter of public record that, as an organisation responsible for providing services to the public and to the courts on behalf of children CAFCASS has experienced a number of crises, including a prolonged period of dispute with its self employed Guardians and a failure to command the full respect it might normally be entitled to expect. This increases the necessity for the Respondent to avoid giving the impression of exacerbating a situation that, in reality, turns out not to have been what it appeared to be at the outset.”
Well, if working at the GSCC does not work out, I suppose Wilt could join CAFCASS – it sounds like an equally fun place to work (sic). The options appear very encouraging – a friend of Wilt has told him about another good place to work, called Ofsted.
However, there is yet more:
“It seems to us appropriate to conclude in these circumstances that none of the Respondent’s processes in this case appeared to be characterised by the necessary fairness or transparency or compliance with natural justice or with Article 6.”
These CST people really are killjoys – their observations imply that those nice people at the GSCC have to do a proper days work and be reasonable in return for their critical role and responsibilities and for their salary/pension. Now how unreasonable is that? And, they want them to be transparent too. What do they want – blood?
“We are very concerned about the Respondent’s belated attempt to produce this further evidence. This was a matter for the separate Conduct Rules process and once the Respondent closed the file on it, it ceased to be relevant to this appeal or a matter to be pursued against the Appellant. It was quite properly not put before the Registration Committee, but that did not prevent the Respondent trying to include it in the evidence for this appeal. Even if that had been an appropriate step to take, the material included a newspaper report of the criminal proceedings in 2005 that gave a wholly misleading impression of the trial and of the Appellant’s conduct.
We received no explanation for its inclusion in the bundle of evidence for this appeal and we were most concerned about the implications of so doing. It was incomplete and gave a partialised view that was entirely incorrect given the facts. It is extremely important that those preparing these appeals take the utmost care not to include “evidence” that may ultimately leave the impression that an attempt is being made to sway the tribunal. In the absence of any explanation, we are at a loss to understand why this material ever appeared and we are unable to find a logical and proportionate reason for so doing.”
Do the above quotes mean the GSCC were being a bit difficult because they realised they had been complete and utter fucking Dorks? Surely not!
Ahem:
“We have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that there are no grounds for believing Mr Bains is not suitable to be a social worker and therefore to refuse to renew his registration. There is every reason to believe that he should be restored to the register without delay given the contents of the glowing testimonials he provided. We are satisfied that the Appellant has demonstrated all that is required for him to continue to be registered as a social worker and we order accordingly.”
Do these people not learn? “Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest” comes to mind as a swinging knightly sword cuts off the head of these fools.
Prince Wilt (of the blogosphere – social care)
