Pick a number................

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