Next on the hit list is Ofsted – see Community Care article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/29/115011/ofsted-to-face-select-committee-inquiry.htm

No news yet of the future of Cafcass but this article might give you a clue that the Government have them in their sights: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/28/114997/cafcass-efficiency-questioned-by-national-audit-office.htm

What will happen to all these people? One suspects the local authority vacancy levels in social care might fall.

Wilt will however not be joining them.

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

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

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

This was an interesting find: http://www.neumansllp.com/legal_support/social_workers/index.html

This firm of solicitors are offering specific services to social workers and in particular dealings with the GSCC – I like them already. We will add them to our recommended list of helpful websites.

They claim to be a UK wide service and I guess out there will be a customer base to serve the frontline social workers. For certain the traffic to Regulator Watch (based on search terms) indicates there is continued anxiety among GSCC and other social care Registrants about the GSCC and others. Here are some exam-le search terms from the month so far:

mike wardle

ofsted reports sandwell social service

interim suspension order draconian

robin weekes gscc

mike wardle sacked

michael wardle ofsted

gscc south Africa

falsifying qualifications social work

suspension of the gscc’s chief executive mike wardle peter

eleni cordingley

gscc incompetent

gscc fail

sssc sites

social worker poor record keeping

can cafcass request crb checks

gscc hearings

go straight to the care standards tribunal

sssc register

gscc legal cases

sssc cases won at appeal

disband the gscc

gscc notice of decision

the power to dismiss gscc committee members

gscc fucked

social workers under investigation by the gscc

what happened before gscc

gscc investigation process

regulator mrs c

gscc bullying

gscc special measures

shirley o malley social worker

robin conduct manager gscc

gscc panel members vacancies

gscc regulator

mike-wardle

poor record keeping by social workers

hate gscc

westberkshire council tribunal

The full list of search terms which lead to Regulator Watch can be found here: webstats 21 may

What is quite remarkable is that the search term “the power to dismiss gscc committee members” was made by a well known London firm of solicitors who have frequently and regularly represented the GSCC in conduct cases, at investigation stage (conducting investigations), in prosecuting misconduct and in defending (not very successfully always) appeals to the first tier Care Standards Tribunal.

We wonder which committee member they are trying to get rid of?

This Robin Weekes fella at the GSCC seems to get a regular search on the internet – he is or was the head of conduct at the GSCC who thought he had confidentially disclosed that Mrs C (her of the Hovel) as “actually being vexatious.”  On that much he was certainly right.

Mrs C remains the most frequent visitor to Regulator Watch – bless her, the poor twat.

We will report further at the end of the month on the full access to Regulator Watch with a particular emphasis on Mrs C and her declining number of enforced and unwilling supporters.

Wilt

In a matter close to Wilt’s heart (and his wallet) Community Care report on the fiasco with the LSC (Legal Services Commission). See article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/05/05/114425/lawyers-hit-out-at-court-fee-cap-on-social-workers.htm

Another article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/05/04/114412/cut-in-independent-court-report-fees-imperil-expert-input.htm

This has been going on for months – it’s an effort to restrict the ever growing public law court costs in child care cases. Essentially reducing the costs paid out in expenses to expert witnesses in preparing reports and in giving expert evidence. However it is restricted to reducing the costs of social workers specifically, as distinct from other experts such as psychologists/psychiatrists etc., etc.

Now Wilt, even though this work is the backbone (although not exclusive) of his business, has mixed feelings.

YES, all budgets need cutting back, and in my opinion far too many experts are engaged and not always successfully, Dr David Southall being a prime example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8661639.stm

But why single out social work experts? Use them less is my answer, not cap their fees – but of course the LSC aint got any control over that.

And it is true, very experienced and competent experts will simply “fade away” and do something else – no doubt the LSC will have factored that scenario into their equation – I would as a business person, managing a budget.

The overall problem lies with the Children Act. The so called “charter for children” (as it was hailed) was nothing remotely resembling anything concerning children or putting their needs as “paramount.” The pecking order is as follows:

i)             Lawyers

ii)            Children’s guardians

iii)           Expert witnesses

iv)           Parents

v)            Children

Court proceedings involving children is big, big money. Utterly hopeless cases are examined to such a degree that is bewildering – however justice has to be done and be seen to be done, but not before the lawyers, guardians and experts have taken their (several) pounds of flesh in fees, and yes sometimes very high fees – you ever seen a poor solicitor?

If the Act is to do justice to children, it needs a massive overhaul. Do not get me wrong, there are some excellent lawyers, very sound guardians, very competent experts and some brilliant magistrates/judges – between them they resolve some highly complex cases, and in others cut through the crap and get to the point.

Expert social workers are sometimes necessary because, we know, some local authorities (not necessarily their social work staff) are utter crap. But folk can we please also recognise some local authority social workers (because of or despite of their organisation) are experts in their own right – yes there are indeed good social workers, and good organisations. It should not, as is common practice, to require an independent social worker to confirm this.

The simple message is – reduce demand on experts and do not cap fees. How that is done?  Change the legislation.

Community Care reported earlier here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/16/114063/court-fees-insult-to-independent-social-workers.htm

Wilt being both an “expert” witness (I prefer the term professional witness) and Independent Children’s Guardian has some insight into these matters. How many social workers, for Gawd sake, does it take to change a light bulb or indeed resolve a court matter – typically there is the local authority social worker (even several in some cases), possibly an “expert” social worker and then a children’s guardian.

Wilt is of limited ability but even he can count – that accounts for a minimum of three, and very possibly more, social workers per case.

There is already an expert in the proceedings – they are called a Children’s Guardian. Does it really need several more social workers?

Wilt

According to several reports to Wilt Mrs C has also been busy, talking to the BBC, ITN News and the Mirror Group about her woes. A certain Salop person reported a visit on their website from ITN and the Mirror Group – not by any means by accident. He also reports certain persons in Oxon had similar visits to their website (BBC/ITN) – the person in Salop is disappointed he had no visit from the BBC!

By some very strange coincidence Regulator Watch has had visits from all three! Excellent, we love it. Bring it on.

What fucking story is she now promulgating, apart from “I am a victim” and “people are out to get me”? No doubt she claims she is “misunderstood, misrepresented and people keep saying things about me. I am a solicitor you know”, as she frequently and (FRAUDUENTLY) claims. We like the word “fraud” as it is so synonymous with Mrs C.

Munchausen Syndrome is a serious condition – it means you staying up all night and spending all day on tasks associated with promoting victim status for the sufferer. Never mind fostering, children, family, doing work  or generally having a normal life – in this case Mrs Fax is faxing, emailing, surfing the net, phoning anyone who is willing to hear from her – not many anymore.

She is a spent cause; she is a “dead parrot” in another scenario and a very, very sad case. Very sad indeed, and very desperate! Her health and that of her family, those she is meant to care for her so called career will be suffering, and if she persists will suffer even more as she and her pet (no longer) MP fail consistently to get even a fingernail hold on her desperate, stale and fraudulent claims.

Bully Girl Mrs C is fast becoming a total non-entity. She digging deeper down that dark hole and a hollow voice cries out – “hello!” Sadly no one listens, no one wants to hear her FALSE cries of despair and victimisation. The truth is that all those agencies, press, local authorities, the Milk Marketing Board and quango have now for a long time “sorted” Mrs C into the category of a “minor irritation.”

It is not nice being in a dark hole – it is damp, dark and rather restricted. Putting yourself in that dark hole is just plain stupid. Some people however just cannot help it.

Dit………dit……….dit…….dot….dot……..dot etc., etc there is more news coming in – oooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrr Mrs C. Did she really do that!? Gawd forbid, Gawd help her.

Wilt