The Wilt is off on business travels again, up north UK this time but immediately after on a couple of trips to sunnier climates – plus of course in August and September the Wilt’s are in the Channel Islands(August) and hot (very) Egypt in September. By which time those £70,000 worth of invoices should be in the bank. Those nice people at the Inland Revenue and Customs will be very happy – Wilt less so. Unfortunately his customers do not pay “cash in hands.”
By ‘eck life is good http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article4405789.ece
We will however keep in touch, and regulator watching – oh and watching Mrs C cyber activity.
Wilt
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Carry on............
It is a month since Mrs C was arrested – not much changes however; she still stalks and continues her favourite activity, complaining. People really should read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Therein one will find a good description of the disgusted of Leamington Spa.
Here is another useful site: http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm
And this one: http://www.flayme.com/stalker/
Let’s look at Mrs C stalking activity, and this is typical:
On 28th July she was surfing via her T-Mobile phone at 00:14 am (Wilt was in bed), then 07:40 am – she really should get her 8 hours of sleep as it is unhealthy not to do so. Then at 12:38 pm and 16:25 pm – she also found time to access the Cloud Network again, but it appears in London this time. Mrs C is on walkabout. Does she know her every click on Regulator Watch is monitored – yes. Can she help herself by not accessing Regulator Watch – no.
What is her obsession, exactly? Well of course we already know the answer to that question – its Munchausen Syndrome. She should look it up – really, together with reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking. Either that or it is mad cow disease, or as some argue, pure evilness. Wilt is coming around to that thinking himself but reserves judgement.
Meanwhile access to Regulator Watch remains high in relation to searches and access about Mrs C – the press and government agencies just love it. We have however needed to block a firm of solicitors in London and their IT support service. They had a little too much interest and strayed into a friends website post the arrest and bail of Mrs C. That of course amounts to stalking and consequently harassment – ooooooeeeeeerrrrrrr!
We understand Mr Plod is being advised. We are further advised that Leamington Spa has a brand new combined Court, police station and cells – very convenient we think, and good economics.
The more she lurks and stalks, the more google uprate Regulator Watch as the primary Blog on social care - carry on Mrs C, you are good for business.
Wilt
Therein one will find a good description of the disgusted of Leamington Spa.
Here is another useful site: http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm
And this one: http://www.flayme.com/stalker/
Let’s look at Mrs C stalking activity, and this is typical:
On 28th July she was surfing via her T-Mobile phone at 00:14 am (Wilt was in bed), then 07:40 am – she really should get her 8 hours of sleep as it is unhealthy not to do so. Then at 12:38 pm and 16:25 pm – she also found time to access the Cloud Network again, but it appears in London this time. Mrs C is on walkabout. Does she know her every click on Regulator Watch is monitored – yes. Can she help herself by not accessing Regulator Watch – no.
What is her obsession, exactly? Well of course we already know the answer to that question – its Munchausen Syndrome. She should look it up – really, together with reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking. Either that or it is mad cow disease, or as some argue, pure evilness. Wilt is coming around to that thinking himself but reserves judgement.
Meanwhile access to Regulator Watch remains high in relation to searches and access about Mrs C – the press and government agencies just love it. We have however needed to block a firm of solicitors in London and their IT support service. They had a little too much interest and strayed into a friends website post the arrest and bail of Mrs C. That of course amounts to stalking and consequently harassment – ooooooeeeeeerrrrrrr!
We understand Mr Plod is being advised. We are further advised that Leamington Spa has a brand new combined Court, police station and cells – very convenient we think, and good economics.
The more she lurks and stalks, the more google uprate Regulator Watch as the primary Blog on social care - carry on Mrs C, you are good for business.
Wilt
Turkey voting for early Xmas.......
The GSCC continue to operate as ‘normal’ pending the transfer in March 2012 to the to be renamed Health Professionals Council http://www.hpc-uk.org/ - or one should say the proposed move in 2012. Many in the Community Care Blog Care Space http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/gscc-to-be-scrapped-health-professionals-8085.aspx#32964 have mixed feelings about it.
The GSCC gives advice on the implications of the recent announcement of their demise here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ and click on big red “i” icon. In short business as usual – mmmmm.
Meanwhile the GSCC has published a number of recent outcomes from their Conduct Committee. This is a very odd one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/435BAC0D-2BA8-493F-B815-9DD47CB9FFBC/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONHIBBERTS.pdf
Essentially the GSCC dropped the case after it was unable to convince a local authority manager to give evidence and to proceed without it would amount to hearsay. Now you would think the GSCC would have realised this before taking it to Committee.
The GSCC are in a difficult position because they cannot force either a registrant or witness to attend – they have no teeth in effect. Not helpful. And of course they have no powers over employers and the code of conduct relating to them is not worth the paper they are written on – it’s just a wish list in effect.
Whoever drew up this legislation and the employers codes needs a jolly good lesson in ‘how not to make a balls-up.’
Other recent concluded hearings include this one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AA176AF6-7A81-4CB7-8BD5-12FE7E710EA0/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONSIMPSON.pdf
Note the offending behaviour relates to 2008 – either this was part of the backlog or the GSCC were not previously aware of it. The naughty boy was looking at pornography on his employer’s computer.
He was suspended for two years.
Another: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/30BF47BA-8D5E-4B6B-8329-DCE583C46253/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMAHABIR.pdf resulted in a one year suspension. This did go back to issues between 2004 – 2008 and the GSCC were made aware of his drink-drive conviction of December 2004 (after he was first registered by the GSCC) in, and I find it odd how they term it, “around 19th November 2008;” either it was or it was not the 19th November 2008 – what’s with this “around” business?
So exactly what were the GSCC doing between (“around)” the 19th November 2008 and 21st July 2010? Not a lot it would seem. The registrant had asked that his GSCC hearing be postponed as he claimed it would prejudice his Employment Tribunal, which it appears is still pending.
And the disposal by way of a one year suspension, is that proportionate especially as he did eventually cough up the details to the GSCC, albeit four years later? Wilt thinks no – far more appropriate would have been an admonishment.
However, the registrant only has himself to blame as he was not in attendance to defend himself or give evidence. With the GSCC that, as a friend would say, is like a turkey voting for an early Christmas.
Each case is worth a read – click on the links above.
The GSCC have published their latest up-coming hearings here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/
Among some interesting ones are:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC31BFE1-A33D-4596-A2C9-F4925B29C6D8/0/SummaryJanjua.pdf
AND:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/134F01BD-EEF2-4797-92BD-3F07B424BDA3/0/SummaryNia.pdf
AND
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F6D734C8-77A7-4D4D-B828-54CA474507A7/0/SummaryHenderson.pdf
Why does the GSCC need to get involved in this matter http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B002178D-48C2-4B2F-ADF0-D1309F474498/0/SummaryNyabunze.pdf one is left to wonder?
Wilt
The GSCC gives advice on the implications of the recent announcement of their demise here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ and click on big red “i” icon. In short business as usual – mmmmm.
Meanwhile the GSCC has published a number of recent outcomes from their Conduct Committee. This is a very odd one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/435BAC0D-2BA8-493F-B815-9DD47CB9FFBC/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONHIBBERTS.pdf
Essentially the GSCC dropped the case after it was unable to convince a local authority manager to give evidence and to proceed without it would amount to hearsay. Now you would think the GSCC would have realised this before taking it to Committee.
The GSCC are in a difficult position because they cannot force either a registrant or witness to attend – they have no teeth in effect. Not helpful. And of course they have no powers over employers and the code of conduct relating to them is not worth the paper they are written on – it’s just a wish list in effect.
Whoever drew up this legislation and the employers codes needs a jolly good lesson in ‘how not to make a balls-up.’
Other recent concluded hearings include this one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AA176AF6-7A81-4CB7-8BD5-12FE7E710EA0/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONSIMPSON.pdf
Note the offending behaviour relates to 2008 – either this was part of the backlog or the GSCC were not previously aware of it. The naughty boy was looking at pornography on his employer’s computer.
He was suspended for two years.
Another: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/30BF47BA-8D5E-4B6B-8329-DCE583C46253/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMAHABIR.pdf resulted in a one year suspension. This did go back to issues between 2004 – 2008 and the GSCC were made aware of his drink-drive conviction of December 2004 (after he was first registered by the GSCC) in, and I find it odd how they term it, “around 19th November 2008;” either it was or it was not the 19th November 2008 – what’s with this “around” business?
So exactly what were the GSCC doing between (“around)” the 19th November 2008 and 21st July 2010? Not a lot it would seem. The registrant had asked that his GSCC hearing be postponed as he claimed it would prejudice his Employment Tribunal, which it appears is still pending.
And the disposal by way of a one year suspension, is that proportionate especially as he did eventually cough up the details to the GSCC, albeit four years later? Wilt thinks no – far more appropriate would have been an admonishment.
However, the registrant only has himself to blame as he was not in attendance to defend himself or give evidence. With the GSCC that, as a friend would say, is like a turkey voting for an early Christmas.
Each case is worth a read – click on the links above.
The GSCC have published their latest up-coming hearings here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/
Among some interesting ones are:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC31BFE1-A33D-4596-A2C9-F4925B29C6D8/0/SummaryJanjua.pdf
AND:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/134F01BD-EEF2-4797-92BD-3F07B424BDA3/0/SummaryNia.pdf
AND
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F6D734C8-77A7-4D4D-B828-54CA474507A7/0/SummaryHenderson.pdf
Why does the GSCC need to get involved in this matter http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B002178D-48C2-4B2F-ADF0-D1309F474498/0/SummaryNyabunze.pdf one is left to wonder?
Wilt
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Jacinta..............
Wilt has had the following Email:
Dear Wilt,
Having been outside of the country for some time I thought I wanted to drop a line about one of my favourite case, Jacinta Hofstetter vs GSCC. I am not sure how close you are from the CST but it seems that you have a very positive view of their work. On my side I spent, for professional reasons, a fair amount of time looking at the Jacinta Hofstetter case. I must say that when I saw the CST judgment I could not believe they produced such poor piece of work, the lack of intellectual rigour is astonishing. The person claimed that she was bullied, harassed and victim of racial insult from a manger at Brent. She moreover accused this manager of having made significant mistakes putting children at risk. Despite evidence this was never investigated either by GSCC and the CST. Not only was it not investigated but the manager was used as a witnessed, produced a statement though did not turn up at the hearing! It was proved that two witnesses lied in their statement, again no mention of this made by GSCC or the CST, only that the witnesses were credible, to lie is credible? One witnessed who conducted the investigation against Jacinta Hofstetter recognised that she had not experience in conducting disciplinary hearing, was out of her depth and was asked to build a case against the defendant instead of investigating impartially. It is in the recording of the hearing but nowhere in the GSCC final statement of the CST. Nobody complained against Jacinta Hofstetter whilst working in Brent. It is only after her suspension that people were asked to complain about her. Evidence though presented were not considered as even not quoted or disproved. Start seeing a pattern? Who would honestly believe that someone with a 15 years of career, became, in the middle of it, for around 12 month, totally and utterly incompetent, and this by coincidence just after reporting her manager for...incompetence! Despite all the GSCC efforts it was still recognised that no children were harmed or put at risk. But who cares, the point is that Jacinta Hofstetter did not go on her knees in front of the GSCC or the CST and fought for what she thought was right. Good for her, I like this! GSCC spent ~£0.5m on to make up a case against her. She obviously did not have this kind of money to spend. I could spend the night going through the details of how wrong this case was and I have no doubt in my mind it was a miscarriage of justice. However I am sure you have better things to do and even if it is not always obvious we are in a democracy and everybody can have his/her point of view.
Best regards,
Justicewillbedone.
Dear Wilt,
Having been outside of the country for some time I thought I wanted to drop a line about one of my favourite case, Jacinta Hofstetter vs GSCC. I am not sure how close you are from the CST but it seems that you have a very positive view of their work. On my side I spent, for professional reasons, a fair amount of time looking at the Jacinta Hofstetter case. I must say that when I saw the CST judgment I could not believe they produced such poor piece of work, the lack of intellectual rigour is astonishing. The person claimed that she was bullied, harassed and victim of racial insult from a manger at Brent. She moreover accused this manager of having made significant mistakes putting children at risk. Despite evidence this was never investigated either by GSCC and the CST. Not only was it not investigated but the manager was used as a witnessed, produced a statement though did not turn up at the hearing! It was proved that two witnesses lied in their statement, again no mention of this made by GSCC or the CST, only that the witnesses were credible, to lie is credible? One witnessed who conducted the investigation against Jacinta Hofstetter recognised that she had not experience in conducting disciplinary hearing, was out of her depth and was asked to build a case against the defendant instead of investigating impartially. It is in the recording of the hearing but nowhere in the GSCC final statement of the CST. Nobody complained against Jacinta Hofstetter whilst working in Brent. It is only after her suspension that people were asked to complain about her. Evidence though presented were not considered as even not quoted or disproved. Start seeing a pattern? Who would honestly believe that someone with a 15 years of career, became, in the middle of it, for around 12 month, totally and utterly incompetent, and this by coincidence just after reporting her manager for...incompetence! Despite all the GSCC efforts it was still recognised that no children were harmed or put at risk. But who cares, the point is that Jacinta Hofstetter did not go on her knees in front of the GSCC or the CST and fought for what she thought was right. Good for her, I like this! GSCC spent ~£0.5m on to make up a case against her. She obviously did not have this kind of money to spend. I could spend the night going through the details of how wrong this case was and I have no doubt in my mind it was a miscarriage of justice. However I am sure you have better things to do and even if it is not always obvious we are in a democracy and everybody can have his/her point of view.
Best regards,
Justicewillbedone.
Monday, 26 July 2010
What next..........?
There is an awful lot of interest on Regulator Watch from hundreds of sources about both the demise of the GSCC and Mrs C – must be all the press releases or otherwise the demonic woman of Leamington Spa is ranting again.
Strangely, a colleague has similar activity on his website. We hope Mrs C is not breaching her bail conditions. He copied me this letter:
“Dear Mr Plod
“Mrs C is at it again – how long did you say she would be locked up for on breach of bail, and does it follow that harassment by others (even unwittingly) can cause their arrest too?
“We have their addresses and personal computer IDs. That is their log on identities. What Silly Billy’s these people are. Should we block them or just let the evidence accumulate?
“Wilt tells me that Mrs C and her toads are on his blog daily, without fail, usually three times a day except Sundays - she seems to be very regular. I will not repeat what Wilt goes on to describe as regular – he is just so rude, albeit correct.
“Do you understand the meaning of ‘Twat’? Personally I prefer a good single malt whisky. I must ask the barman for a ‘Twat.’ Sounds as if it might be interesting. I am game for a new experience.
“Anyway, you are on duty and enough about drinking – any advice please shall be greatly appreciated.”
To set this in context Mrs C was ARRESTED for cyber stalking and harassment on 29th June 2010 and bailed on conditions for three months not to make contact with (or cause others contact) with certain named individuals, companies and their websites.
Mrs C is a foster parent, so called although you would be hard pressed to find any activity as such as she spends most of her sad life in her former council house scouring the internet for any muck she can use to perpetuate her sad and demonic harassment. Go here to get a good description of Mrs C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Less than a month, as predicted, the mad twat has breached her bail.
Oh dear.......... She has no fucking clue.
What next?
Wilt
Strangely, a colleague has similar activity on his website. We hope Mrs C is not breaching her bail conditions. He copied me this letter:
“Dear Mr Plod
“Mrs C is at it again – how long did you say she would be locked up for on breach of bail, and does it follow that harassment by others (even unwittingly) can cause their arrest too?
“We have their addresses and personal computer IDs. That is their log on identities. What Silly Billy’s these people are. Should we block them or just let the evidence accumulate?
“Wilt tells me that Mrs C and her toads are on his blog daily, without fail, usually three times a day except Sundays - she seems to be very regular. I will not repeat what Wilt goes on to describe as regular – he is just so rude, albeit correct.
“Do you understand the meaning of ‘Twat’? Personally I prefer a good single malt whisky. I must ask the barman for a ‘Twat.’ Sounds as if it might be interesting. I am game for a new experience.
“Anyway, you are on duty and enough about drinking – any advice please shall be greatly appreciated.”
To set this in context Mrs C was ARRESTED for cyber stalking and harassment on 29th June 2010 and bailed on conditions for three months not to make contact with (or cause others contact) with certain named individuals, companies and their websites.
Mrs C is a foster parent, so called although you would be hard pressed to find any activity as such as she spends most of her sad life in her former council house scouring the internet for any muck she can use to perpetuate her sad and demonic harassment. Go here to get a good description of Mrs C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Less than a month, as predicted, the mad twat has breached her bail.
Oh dear.......... She has no fucking clue.
What next?
Wilt
Bonfire...................
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)