Friday, 10 September 2010

Fair Comment

From the Wilt Portfolio

It would appear CAFCASS are protesting against fair comment, not by simply protesting but by referring the matter to the GSCC. See the Blog post here from Allan Norman (of Celtic Knot).

The question not posed by Norman however is how the matter managed to get from the GSCC conduct team, through a Preliminary Proceedings hearing and finally onto a full Conduct hearing? The GSCC officers could have knocked the complaint on the head as an obvious malicious complaint, attempting to silence not only Charles Place but indeed post a warning to others who might disagree with CAFCASS.

So, although the GSCC tribunal Committee might have done the right thing (and they did), there is no analysis of how it got before the Committee in the first place. What were the GSCC officers up to bringing this matter before them?
How much wasted resources and thousands of pounds were spent on this wasteful exercise, and really was an admonishment necessary given as Norman observes:

“One irony of this case is that the social worker concerned remains employed by CAFCASS apparently carrying out "valuable work for us to a good standard" according to its chief executive. Misconduct is defined as conduct which calls into question suitability to remain on the register. CAFCASS did not even believe it called into question his competence or suitability to be employed by them, so why bring the complaint?”

A similar question, Allan, applies to the GSCC officers.

It just goes to show that the GSCC are still a very dysfunctional organisation incapable of deciding what role it fulfils.

Wilt

1 comment:

  1. I made a similar but hypothetical point about this type of thing in connection to the NISCC. I wondered how the NISCC might act, were my identity to become known to it, in connection to my suitability to work in social care, given that I have made a range of comments about the organisation, some mocking, some questioning of its existence, activities and costs and some lauding its positive actions. All in all the actions of someone not out to make mischief, well maybe a bit but even those at the NISCC must surely have a sense of humour. They expect social care staff to be tolerant towards those with whom they work. Surely in turn this must extend to those registrants who question the role and indeed the very existence of the NISCC? This is uncharted territory. I expect that my comments on the small and closely entwined network of senior managers who populate our social care employers and regulators will not have been well received, nor indeed the questioning of the expensive waste of resources from a body needlessly inhabiting prime city centre premises. So in the interests of carrying on my unofficial regulating of our regulator I must as they say remain incognito but of course ever Watchful...

    ReplyDelete