Meanwhile the new Supreme Court has forced a judgement of a slightly peculiar nature and questionable wisdom:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8634239.stm

Has the correct balance been achieved? Clearly adults (offenders of gross acts) need to be given the right to be rehabilitated but children (victims) seem again to have a limited, if any, voice in proceedings. Why, for example, were not the NSPCC seeking party statuses in such a case matter and strenuously arguing child protection concerns? Where were, with all their money gained through public support, the NSPCC?

Nowhere to be seen – again!

Wilt (from his desk in Malta)

This press release from the GSCC is an utter disgrace. They first off presume they have a future (at all), second they believe they have something to contribute, third they assume any competence (they are under special measures) but fourth and worst of all they believe they have the moral foundation (“compass”) to judge others.

See the press release here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Media_release_17-03-10.htm

We believe this is the equivalent of “whistling in the dark” (as in nervously walking down a dark alley feeling very nervous but trying to appear confident to ward off an attack). In reality the GSCC are fighting for their life and they are grasping at any opportunity which might deter any further attack on their status e.g. we are big girls and do not take us on.

The fact is “darlings”  your future is already written, and it aint as you hope or aspire to – you’re dead meat girlies and no amount of whistling  will improve your chances of winning confidence with anyone.

We see the Care Standards Tribunal continue to regard the GSCC as utter dorks, see here: http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=1071

Wilt is aware that other findings will yet further prove the fuck ups of this most fucked up organisation.

Twats!

Wilt

Well, it seems BASW are really getting a bashing over the proposal to go for a separate Social Work College – now its academics. See article here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/09/114009/sector-leaders-shun-basw-college-plan.htm

Among them is Ray Jones who famously had q bit of a falling out with the previous CEO of BASW (not difficult) and knowing both men I can assure you Ray Jones is a very affable man. It is a real shame BASW are taking this approach and as indicated by the comments of the academics it is going to create division and confusion when what is needed is consensus and clarity.

Why, oh why oh why are these people doing this? And a better question is why do BASW think they have improved over their previous capacity of not being able to organise a piss up in a brewery? They are essentially entirely out of their depth.

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

Wilt has been working hard, hence his absence from the Blog. However, he has been doing some catching up with, even for him, an earlier than normal start to the day.

It seems according to Community Care: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/03/04/113956/one-third-of-foster-carers-forced-to-consider-giving-up.htm that foster parents are displeased with their remuneration, and that comes as no surprise as they are as a whole undervalued and not really seen by many in social care as partners.

It is further reported here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8548636.stm by the BBC.

Let me be clear, the vast majority of foster parents are true professionals, occasionally far more grounded and professional than some of those spotty faced newly qualified social workers, their managers and elected members – generally, although not always the voluntary and independent agencies are much better at managing these services and is one area where local authorities would be best to chuck in the towel.

I say generally as to be fair some local authorities are very good at it, but even the best of them struggle.

Foster care is no panacea as there remains as evidenced (mostly in the private sector) in the high numbers of children’s homes in operation. Equally, as there are Dork social workers there are utter idiots and charlatans among the ranks of foster parents, purely out for their own ends and to do as little as possible and, in order to divert attention from their failings/inadequacies, spend immense energy in finding fault with others – as in Mrs C.

So whereas the VAST majority of foster parents work hard, diligently and with complete focus on the child, others (and there is usually one per agency) simply want to create as much havoc as possible in the hope of promoting their personal vanity and lazy/false suggestion of their talents in professional child care. They are a distraction which on the whole obscures the tireless but genuine foster parents who quietly get on with the very hard task of caring for neglected, rejected and abused children, of all ages.

In days gone by the former National Foster Care Association, now the Fostering Network (http://www.fostering.net/) were an organisation you could do business with and were a true and righteous political pressure group, led by good people who, although occasionally lacking a sense of reality, actually cared about children.

They struggled in balancing the factual portrayal (then) of foster carers being intrinsically and instinctively motivated by no personal gain (other than caring for children) and the aspiration that they should be recognised as equal professionals. That struggle is ongoing sadly, but the new Fostering Network does not help itself when failing to distinguish between really good foster carers and really rather poor, questionably motivated people like Mrs C – it is rumoured/reported (from numerous sources) that Mr C is the real foster parent whilst Mrs C is just, well, a waste of space and to boot does not give a shit. And these are reliable sources.

Most “normal” people simply get on with the job – they perform well and are rewarded by results. Some however do the least possible and divert attention away from their personal failures, as in Mrs C.

A bit like social work, foster care is as much a passion and vocation as it is a professional task (unless you are Mrs C et al) but it is imperative that there is “body” which promotes its advance. As BASW is a false hope for social work, so equally is the Fostering Network under its current leadership.

If the Fostering Network (among others) wish to (and it seems it is a wish) defend the likes of Mrs C on the indefensible, then so be it – all it will achieve will be to drag itself down to the level of Mrs C, which it has done hitherto even to values and means exploited by the GSCC, and one gets low in moral standards at that level. In a case matter even the GSCC considered the Fostering Network as a hopeless witness in a (unpublished) finding and the Police were simply, well, spitting in their contempt for this (so called) representatives of foster carers.

Dorks come to mind.

However, better recognition (professionally) is necessary – they like others will however need to ride out the recession and consequential major cutbacks soon upon us. They remain however, with a few exceptions, my heroes.

Wilt

Gone it seems are the talks of BASW (British Association of Social Workers) becoming a trade union (as distinct from a professional body) and their role in the forming of the Social Work College (Royal or not) is fraught with tensions – or more to the point fraught with competition.  Added to this there are now further tensions between BASW and Unison (the primary local authority trade union.)

Personally, I had some hope for BASW http://www.basw.co.uk/) under the leadership of Hilton Dawson but I am beginning to wonder if even he can drag the organisation out of the utter mess his predecessors created. BASW could never become the organisation to run the Social Work College as they are simply too unsophisticated.

Although BASW claim a massive increase in membership (not yet Wilt) they represent still a small minority, and the term “represent” even has some uncertainty, especially if it comes to dealing with the GSCC et al. Somehow, I do not think this is Hilton’s fault, he probably has as many challenges within BASW as he does external – the BASW committees are a bit of a wet rag, believe me.

They need to bring Dr Ray Jones back on board, although even he (who is very competent) struggled with BASW – or at least its previous head that was an utter disaster.

And so BASW fight this corner, as in this article: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/26/113926/basw-ditches-plan-for-joint-membership-scheme-with-unison.htm but fails to win agreement, but somehow one tends to think that perhaps it is not unrelated to this other tussle: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/26/113924/basw-and-unison-split-over-independent-practices.htm

On the latter matter, Wilt supports Dawson and agrees with the unstated but underlying belief that Unison are only out to serve themselves, a bit like Arthur Scargill did with the miners – you know, him with the odd hair style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill and otherwise a total fucking twat!

An independent social work workforce is the answer, but unfortunately BASW is not the vehicle to lead that progress, nor sadly are some of the voluntary agencies such as the NSPCC (total twats) – it needs a competent mixture of direct service delivery from the private and voluntary sectors with local authorities acting as commissioning agents. In time, that is what will happen, and bit by bit it is, even under the Brown/Balls leadership much to the chagrin of Unison Stalinists.

When it does come in to final fruition, and it is not if but when, it will certainly sort out the men from the boys and it will ensure that there is a proper agreement between Government and social care providers on what are the priorities – not like now that everything is a priority whether or not there is funding. And, those who are incompetent, and that includes you Mrs C, will find themselves in the wilderness.

So it is less that Hilton Dawson is failing, it is simply he is in the wrong place and has committed himself to a defunct organisation which needs a complete overhaul and shake up – indeed wake up!

I remain confident in Hilton, for now, but Gawd he has a job and more than a half to do. Step back Hilton and think on my man.

We will monitor his progress here on Regulator Watch.

Wilt

The next chapter in the Mrs and the GSCC saga is ready and will be uploaded once it is clear that it will not interfere with ongoing investigations or pervert the course of justice.

However, chapter 6 is in hand – that may come before chapter 5. Odd I know, but we try to keep on the right side of “proper.”

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)