Not Again.

[ohgrandma]

I have just watched the news. Another child dies from horrendous injuries, When oh when is this going to stop? It is heartbreaking to think what this little one suffered, Ria.

[nightrider]

ohgrandma - 2009-01-13 6:21 PM

 

I have just watched the news. Another child dies from horrendous injuries, When oh when is this going to stop? It is heartbreaking to think what this little one suffered, Ria.

 

Ria,

I honestly cannot read or watch news items like that without being reduced to tears, I would have no hesitation in hanging someone who is found guilty of abusing a child or an animal, no hesitation at all.

The look of why? in a childs or animals trusting eyes is enough to haunt me till I died.

[maggyd]

Ria it is very upsetting and we cant comprehend what kind of a person can do this to a child they are completely evil and I just hope that they get what they deserve :-( but that little ones suffering is now over, I hope that this evil persons suffering is just beginning. >:-)

[Patricia]

I can't watch the NSPCC advertisement. I have to close my eyes and turn the mute on until it finishes. I know that that is only acting but it is bad enough. I can understand anyone getting frustrated and angry with a child that, for instance, whines for hours or who is openly defiant but not to systematically torture another person, and often just a young baby, or animal. I seriously think that they should receive corporal punishment for crimes such as this.

 

While I am getting wound up about this, what about that woman who was ultimately responsible for baby P's death having the audacity to go to a tribunal to claim money for dismissal!! What a nerve!!

[CliveH]

As a 56 yr old who has been around a bit I agree with Malcolm - I find it VERY hard to even be in the room when the news is on and they are covering these truly horrendous events.

 

My wife said that he should be castrated and she should be sterilised irreversibly. I agree. Let’s not allow those that have this predilection to abuse of innocents the chance to do it again.

 

Because the Social Services have shown time and time again that they are incapable of protecting those that need it most.

 

In some ways I hope I am on the jury at the trial of a prisoner who expresses their dissatisfaction with one such as these monsters. Have a guess how my vote would go.

 

[GJH]

Patricia - 2009-01-13 10:23 PM

(snip)

While I am getting wound up about this, what about that woman who was ultimately responsible for baby P's death having the audacity to go to a tribunal to claim money for dismissal!! What a nerve!!

For the sake of accuracy, the people ultimately responsible for Baby P's death were the people who killed him, not any employees of Haringey Council.

 

As we have seen today with the ridiculous "Sooty" story, just because some sections of the media report a story in a particular way does not mean it is true.

 

Graham

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-01-13 11:14 PM

(snip)Because the Social Services have shown time and time again that they are incapable of protecting those that need it most.

(snip)

I'm not going to belittle any of these tragedies in any way. However, if we accept that there are failures within Social Services, we have to ask outselves why.

 

One of the factors is that some local authorities do not have the money to employ enough qualified people to handle the workload.

 

For example, let's say that a social worker has a caseload of 10 families. On average that means that they can devote half a day per working week to each case. Take into account travel time to and from their base plus time spent in writing reports and pursuing action and it comes down to about an hour a week to actually visit and work with each family.

 

Does society want to spend more tax money on training and employing more effective social workers? Not if many of the threads on this and other forums are to go by.

 

I was struck, yesterday, by part of a TV report on the situation in Doincaster. A woman who knew one of the families where a child had died said something along the lines of Social Services not doing enough. The way she spoke, it appeared that she knew something was wrong but did absolutely nothing herself. I would suggest that it is up to all of us to take responsibility for stopping abuse by our neighbours if/when we suspect that it is occurring, without relying on social workers to do that for us.

 

Graham

[Patricia]

I agree Graham and perhaps in the name of brevity I did not explain my point clearly enough. My comment was based on the fact (corroberated by several people) that she ignored information given by social service personnel and that she did not oversee cases as she was employed to do. Therefore she was responsible for the failure of her department. Please note that nowhere did I suggest that she was responsible for the baby's death but maybe a case could be made that she could have prevented it happening? Presumably the tribunal took this evidence into account as they came to their decision incredibly speedily. It is not my personal judgment, swayed by the media, but that of the tribunal.

[maryowlgirl]

If they started to give the rats the same treatment as they gave those poor children then perhaps the COWARDS (thats what they are to pick on small children) would think twice.

[GJH]

Patricia - 2009-01-13 11:33 PM

 

I agree Graham and perhaps in the name of brevity I did not explain my point clearly enough. My comment was based on the fact (corroberated by several people) that she ignored information given by social service personnel and that she did not oversee cases as she was employed to do. Therefore she was responsible for the failure of her department. Please note that nowhere did I suggest that she was responsible for the baby's death but maybe a case could be made that she could have prevented it happening? Presumably the tribunal took this evidence into account as they came to their decision incredibly speedily. It is not my personal judgment, swayed by the media, but that of the tribunal.

Thanks for the clarification Patricia. I'm afraid, though, that your understanding of the facts - as expressed in your message - is still not fully accurate.

 

My source is a report in The Independent published 2 days ago.

 

As you will see, Sharon Shoesmith was initially removed from her job by Ed Balls, the Childrens Secretary. It was subsequently that Haringey Council sacked her and then ratified that decision after she appealed. At the moment there has been no Employment Tribunal held. The sacking decisions have been made by politicians.

 

It has also been reported - Here and Here are two examples - that the risks were reported to government ministers well before Baby P was killed.

 

By the logic of ignoring information and responsibility for failure, should it not be the government which is sacked, rather than an individual council employee?

 

Graham

[CliveH]

Coverage last night on the news stated that Reading Council had a two tier reporting system that failed to enable a proper service to be offered. Ofsted clearly labelled the situation as a failure of people.

 

There were two systems a paper system and a computer based one. If a Reading Social worker entered info on the paper system it was not available to another Social worker who used the computer system and vice versa.

 

And yet funding was not an issue it seemed. Trying not to get into the party politics - it was made clear that up until the last local elections the Council was a Labour majority and had been for a couple of decades and so this mess in Reading is down to people who clearly allowed it to happen "on their watch".

 

Tho it does seem to me that Ofsted is only now looking beyond the tick box mentality that most Teachers complain about and from the Haringey debacle seemed to be the way Ofsted assessed Social Services as well.

 

The Telegraph today has a lengthy article that covers this and the other two areas. It makes for very depressing reading.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4214314/The-children-failed-by-social-services.html

 

 

[CliveH]

Having looked at Grahams excellent links - what struck me was the fact that a Social worker (Kemel) actually felt the need to complain about the poor procedures and service at Haringey - and what did she get?

 

A disciplinary and a court case that she won.

 

Is this not a truly appalling indictment of the attitude of some that are in charge of huge chunks of public money?

 

Complain and we will have you!

 

Tow the line, tick the boxes and vulnerable kiddies die.

 

So far from what I have just read the only worthy person in all of this was Kemel for trying to do something - losing a job and dealing with a court case/tribunal because of doing what was right.

 

[GJH]

CliveH - 2009-01-14 9:58 AM

 

Coverage last night on the news stated that Reading Council had a two tier reporting system that failed to enable a proper service to be offered. Ofsted clearly labelled the situation as a failure of people.

 

There were two systems a paper system and a computer based one. If a Reading Social worker entered info on the paper system it was not available to another Social worker who used the computer system and vice versa.

 

And yet funding was not an issue it seemed. Trying not to get into the party politics - it was made clear that up until the last local elections the Council was a Labour majority and had been for a couple of decades and so this mess in Reading is down to people who clearly allowed it to happen "on their watch".

 

Tho it does seem to me that Ofsted is only now looking beyond the tick box mentality that most Teachers complain about and from the Haringey debacle seemed to be the way Ofsted assessed Social Services as well.

 

The Telegraph today has a lengthy article that covers this and the other two areas. It makes for very depressing reading.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4214314/The-children-failed-by-social-services.html

 

There is absolutely no excuse for having two separate systems like that. If nothing else it is probably illegal in terms of the Data Protection Act. Because of the nature of Social Services records, which go back decades in some cases, there are bound to be some paper records still in existence (and still being created because use of paper can not be avoided in some cases) but it is not a difficult job to ensure that those records are properly cross-referenced with the modern computer system.

 

When I worked in DP in local government I used to run internal training courses, many of which were specifically for Social Services staff. They were left in no doubt that the council had one system - and only one system - for recording of cases. They were also told that if I caught anyone not adhering to that rule by keeping separate records then they would be reported to the Director straight away. It only took one or two such reports for the message to get across.

 

It is interesting to see that the Telegraph report says "During the period examined by the case review, four directors of the council held responsibility for children's services.". Quite apart from the effects of normal staff turnover, which happens in all organsiations, local government suffers from having to comply with legislation which is often half-baked and which often has to be implemented without adequate resourcing. The Children Act 2004 is a case in point in this area. The Act required that councils set up specific Children's Services departments and that led to a massive upheaval of splitting/merging of the functions of existing Social Services and Education Departments and their recording systems. Unless great care is taken in such a situation it is easy for failure to be built in.

 

In regard to tick box mentality of inspections, that is not something confined to Ofsted. Too often inspections are designed to obtain results which support the political agenda of the government of the day rather than ensuring that systems are appropriate to deliver services. I used to be enormously frustrated by the fact that inspections would record whether or not a procedure had been put in place for a certain function but made no attempt to record whether the procedure was being adhered to.

 

Graham

[Guest Tracker]

A god friend of ours who is a very well qualified and experienced social worker was fired in 2005 by Pembrokeshire social services for whistle blowing about the state of care for elderly and mentally infirm people locally.

 

He took it to tribunal and was given a substantial settlement figure. Nevertheless he had to move away in order to get another job in social care - which as it turns out was the best career move he has ever made - although he did not know it at the time.

 

We know of two other 'managers' in this areas who are just keeping their heads below the parapet and waiting quietly for retirement because they don't have enough staff to do the job properly or the budget to provide care where needed and are too afraid to speak out.

 

Sure there are bad and uncaring social workers just as there are in all professions but the vast majority do care and do try hard to help in spite of mountains of beurocracy and form filling and ever moving goalposts.

 

The main problems with social care in the Uk are,

 

1 Insufficient budget to provide care for many that need it - particularly the elderly as more and more money is thrown at child care - I'm not asking for less money for children but the gulf in resources between old and young is huge.

 

2 Not enough skilled and experienced social workers to handle the work load and to be able to distinguish the genuine claimants/victims (old and young) from the very clever and deceitful dishonest and violent people.

 

3 Front line social workers get a lot of abuse thrown at them - verbal and physical - when they try to investigate someone suspected of fraud or violence and you cannot wonder that many of them are afraid to work alone much of the time. They also get a lot of pressure from managers to handle impossible case loads and then get a bollocking when they do not get to one of the excessive cases on time. Although they try most of them can't be in more than one place at any one time.

 

4 The self survival attitude of senior politicians and management who will not tolerate criticism of their own actions but instead always seek to find a scapegoat who either cannot or will not fight back.

 

5 There is an overlap between NHS responsibility for mental health and social services responsibility and there is a lot of buck passing and toing and froing of some cases as each department seeks to preserve it's own budget - meanwhile nothing gets done.

 

Until we get a proper appraisal of needs system and an adequate social services budget that is led by actual need and not led by cost savings brought about by a restricted budget and until front line workers are encouraged to voice their concerns without fear of a witch hunt and until all health issues be it mental or physical or age related are the remit of one organisation with one overall budget then nothing will ever change and tragedies and over sights will continue to happen.

 

Meanwhile more and more over stressed experienced and caring social workers continue to either leave the work or go off on long term stress related incapacity - and who can blame them when the higher authorities are so detached from reality and too hell bent on their own career preservation to actually address the real issues that blight our society.

[GJH]

Tracker - 2009-01-14 1:08 PM

Until we get a proper appraisal of needs system and an adequate social services budget that is led by actual need and not led by cost savings brought about by a restricted budget and until front line workers are encouraged to voice their concerns without fear of a witch hunt and until all health issues be it mental or physical or age related are the remit of one organisation with one overall budget then nothing will ever change and tragedies and over sights will continue to happen.

Well said Richard.

 

Graham

[Syd]

Hi GJH

Good post BUT

 

If you have a car and want to use that car on the road it is your legal responsibility to tax and insure your car wether you can afford it or not.

 

If you live in a house in the UK it is your legal responsibility to pay your Council tax wether you can afford to or not

 

The point that I am trying to make is that Social Services have a legal responsibility to protect vulnerable children and so where does money come into it. I know that it does but it shouldn't if it is a legal responsibility surely

 

Regarding your criticsm of the lady who said that the Social Services didn't do enough.

Well in many cases the Social Services heads of department are unaproachable and frequently take very little notice of members of the public pointing out obvious problems, often taking the stance that they are the highly trained professionals who know what they are doing and the members of the public making the complaint are interfering untrained busybodies commenting on something that they cannot posibly know anything about because they have not had any of "our training" in child care.

I do agree that we should all get involved though

 

One of the problems is that these highly trained professionals are often either straight from university, or do not have families themselves, and are living or have lived in a "sanitised world" ie they have had a mostly child free life and so they cannot have the guidance of the basic maternal instincts of say a mother or even a grandmother who would immediately spot any problems like this purely by their experience based instinct

 

Anyway to really sum it all up the children should NEVER have been with those parents in the first place, the whole blame for this fiasco really cannot rest anywhere else other than with the Social Services.

Sadly no one will prosecute anyone so no one has any real wories but you miss out on any of your legal responsibilities and you know what to expect even if it is an oversight

 

[donna miller]

I'm with Syd on this one, there are far too many people defending this Shoesmith woman.

They claim she should not be made responsible, and yet the same people are saying it should be government officials who are disciplined. Just where is the reasoning behind that statement. If the HOD isn't responsible, how can a government official who has never set foot in Harringay council social services office, let alone read their case files, be any more responsible than her.

She blamed lack of funds, high volumes of cases, undertrained staff, in fact she tried to blame everything and everybody but herself. And that was not only unforgiveable but downright cowardly in my opinion.

She was head of the department responsible for the safety of children within the council area, as HOD she was responsible for the actions of her co-workers and she failed in that, and many other points. Harringay council were aware that baby Peter was at risk, and failed to protect him. There is no excuse for that, and Shoesmith has shown no remorse for her lack of actions, all she has been concerned about, is her own situation.

Justice was served and she lost her appeal, I hope she never gets the chance to work where children are involved ever again.

She was not the only employee who was disciplined over this case, but she is the only one with the gall to appeal. When she finally admits she failed in her duty, maybe public will show her some support or sympathy, something she failed to give little Peter.

 

Lets not forget that this case was not an isolated one, the very same department was also responsible for the little girl named Victoria Clumbie who died a few years ago.officials defended that departments actions then, and they got away lightly that time, obviously lessons were not learned.

 

 

 

 

 

[GJH]

Syd - 2009-01-14 11:41 PM

 

Hi GJH

Good post BUT

 

If you have a car and want to use that car on the road it is your legal responsibility to tax and insure your car wether you can afford it or not.

 

If you live in a house in the UK it is your legal responsibility to pay your Council tax wether you can afford to or not

 

The point that I am trying to make is that Social Services have a legal responsibility to protect vulnerable children and so where does money come into it. I know that it does but it shouldn't if it is a legal responsibility surely

I understand what you're saying, Syd, and I wish it was the case that Social Services had such a legal responsibility without regard to money.

I think the current legislation is S11(2) of the Children Act 2004 (which applies to police, health authoriies and others as well as local authorities):

2)Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—

(a)their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and

(b)any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.

Note the wording "having regard to the need", which qualifies the responsibility "to safeguard and promote the welfare of children" and contrast it with (for example) S7(8) of the Data Protection Act 1998

(8) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day.

which actually says "shall comply".

Quite why the government should have included such a "get out clause" in the Children Act which it didn't include in other legislation I don't know. Perhaps, though, it is in recognition that it needed something to hide behind knowing that some authorities find it impossible to employ sufficient resources to meet their workload?

 

Syd - 2009-01-14 11:41 PM

Regarding your criticsm of the lady who said that the Social Services didn't do enough.

Well in many cases the Social Services heads of department are unaproachable and frequently take very little notice of members of the public pointing out obvious problems, often taking the stance that they are the highly trained professionals who know what they are doing and the members of the public making the complaint are interfering untrained busybodies commenting on something that they cannot posibly know anything about because they have not had any of "our training" in child care.

I do agree that we should all get involved though

 

One of the problems is that these highly trained professionals are often either straight from university, or do not have families themselves, and are living or have lived in a "sanitised world" ie they have had a mostly child free life and so they cannot have the guidance of the basic maternal instincts of say a mother or even a grandmother who would immediately spot any problems like this purely by their experience based instinct

I have come across several people working in social services who think they are a cut above the general population because they have a piece of paper and I agree that such a situation is wrong. I had personal experience when my late father had to go into nursing care when I had occasion to complain about a Director of Social Services in a Midlands county - and it's up to us all to complain when that does happen.

 

Having said that I have come across similar attitudes from people in other jobs in both public and private sectors.

 

I've also come across several people who have no experience to back up their university theory courses. The problem is that, sometimes, an authority is faced with employing either an inexperienced person or nobody at all. We need, as a society, to ensure that authorities can retain experienced staff to properly train new employees.

 

Syd - 2009-01-14 11:41 PM

Anyway to really sum it all up the children should NEVER have been with those parents in the first place, the whole blame for this fiasco really cannot rest anywhere else other than with the Social Services.

Sadly no one will prosecute anyone so no one has any real wories but you miss out on any of your legal responsibilities and you know what to expect even if it is an oversight

I agree that, with hindsight, the children in these cases should have been removed from their parents. I'm sure though that, like me, you remember the Cleveland cases of a little over 20 years ago when a number of children were removed from their parents for what turned out to be totally unjustifiable reasons. We also have to remember that some of the adults involved are accomplished liars and able to pull the wool over the eyes of many people they come into contact with. In many cases social workers have to tread a fine line. Sometimes, like all of us, they will make mistakes.

 

Graham

[GJH]

donna miller - 2009-01-15 8:44 AM

 

I'm with Syd on this one, there are far too many people defending this Shoesmith woman.

They claim she should not be made responsible, and yet the same people are saying it should be government officials who are disciplined. Just where is the reasoning behind that statement. If the HOD isn't responsible, how can a government official who has never set foot in Harringay council social services office, let alone read their case files, be any more responsible than her.

She blamed lack of funds, high volumes of cases, undertrained staff, in fact she tried to blame everything and everybody but herself. And that was not only unforgiveable but downright cowardly in my opinion.

She was head of the department responsible for the safety of children within the council area, as HOD she was responsible for the actions of her co-workers and she failed in that, and many other points. Harringay council were aware that baby Peter was at risk, and failed to protect him. There is no excuse for that, and Shoesmith has shown no remorse for her lack of actions, all she has been concerned about, is her own situation.

Justice was served and she lost her appeal, I hope she never gets the chance to work where children are involved ever again.

She was not the only employee who was disciplined over this case, but she is the only one with the gall to appeal. When she finally admits she failed in her duty, maybe public will show her some support or sympathy, something she failed to give little Peter.

 

Lets not forget that this case was not an isolated one, the very same department was also responsible for the little girl named Victoria Clumbie who died a few years ago.officials defended that departments actions then, and they got away lightly that time, obviously lessons were not learned.

 

Tha point I was trying to make earlier is that, at the moment, nobody has actually established the extent of responsibility that "this Shoesmith woman" had in this case. There has been no employment tribunal to hear and judge the full facts. As yet the government has ignored calls to set up a public enquiry to establish the full facts.

 

All that we members of the public know at the moment is what has been published in the media - and we have no way of being sure of the accuracy of what has been published.

 

I've tried to find the details of the other employees who were disciplined over this case but haven't been able to do so - I'd appreciate a reference please.

 

Graham

[Syd]

Hi GJH

Thanks for yet another good post

 

You have made it abundantly clear what the problem is now, there is no legal responsibilities or legal liabilities on anyone in child protection.

They carry great authority but have no legal responsibilities

I believe that most people would expect that child protection should NOT come second to monitary concerns when budgeting is being planned, instead they should be placed at the top of the priorities list, as they always are in the normal families home environment.

 

I do well remember Dr Maria Higgs, she reinforces my point of lack of family/child/maternal experience.

Here was another woman who, I think, never accepted that she was wrong.

I believe she is currently working in the same field elsewhere so again no lessons learned

 

It is all a sorry disapointing mess and apart from taking the whole service apart and starting again I do not know what the answer is.

 

 

It would seem that the "We know better than you over anxcious parents" attitude is prevalent throughout the whole of every service provision in this country.

[GJH]

Syd - 2009-01-15 10:44 AM

It is all a sorry disapointing mess and apart from taking the whole service apart and starting again I do not know what the answer is.

I think you probably have it in a nutshell there Syd.

 

Much of my careeer was spent in business/systems analysis, trying to establish for a given area the requirements and problems which needed to be addressed. In so many cases (not just social work and in both public and private sectors) systems and procedures have been adapted and built on without anyone looking properly at the effect. Sooner or later the result is like an upside down pyramid wth similar instability.

 

That is not to say that anyone deliberately sets out to make a bad job of things. In Cleveland certain social workers received just as much criticism in the media as Shoesmith has this time - but for the opposite reasons of doing too much to protect children. As Baroness Butler-Sloss said: “In Cleveland an honest attempt was made to address these problems by the agencies. In Spring 1987 it went wrong.”

 

Trouble is that to undertake a full analysis is expensive - and building systems to meet specific needs (rather than just adapting something on the basis of "well it nearly fits") is even more expensive. Until we as a society accept that if we want a higher standard we have to pay more then things will not change.

 

Graham

[Guest Tracker]

All the while human beings are involved in anything - especially anything where the rules are interpreted to suit the event and the budget - there will always be human errors.

 

The more layers of humans in Graham's inverse pyramid of officialdom - such a lovely description and so apt - the more opportunities there are for a small unintentional human error of one human to be magnified out of all proportion by successive small and unintentional errors - as per the chaos theory.

 

The problem is that when one human spots another's error he/she is not allowed to highlight it without fear of vilification and persecution such is the climate of fear and self preservation that pervades the UK.

 

As long as a 'blame someone else' culture continues and until it is replaced with a 'lets find the reason and correct it' culture starting at the very top nothing will ever change.

 

Witch hunts and the firing of experienced people may satisfy the blood letting PC masses but all they really achieve is the growth of fear in those that remain.

 

The loss of yet another experienced person from a service that is already stretched to breaking point and can ill afford such a pointless exercise is in itself criminal in my view.

[fred22]

I am convinced that things started to go downhill when, we in the UK adopted the American compensation culture.

Too many, in all walks of life, are now frightened to make a decision in case something goes wrong.

In my opinion, if someone make a decision based on the facts before them and that decision is made without malice they should get the full support of their superiors, in the knowledge that if they have made a genuine mistake their jobs and careers are not at risk. The superiors to whom the case workers report should also get similar protection.

It is surely better to have these children taken into care sooner rather than later? But I suppose cost will then start to raise it's head.

Nothing will change until the Government and Courts get together on compensation cases. (Don't think I am against compensation claims I am not, but the present system really needs looking at)

[GJH]

In some cases there is certainly a climate of fear of being blamed/ being sued/being sanctioned by the law. Often enough this comes about because people working in fields like social services, NHS etc do not have knowledge of other legislative areas.

 

In my latter days of employment I helped run courses for people from social services, education, NHS, police and fire service. My own specialism was data sharing and Data Protection.

 

The advice that we gave in general was to err on the side of caution - if the situation was not cut and dried but there was a genuine fear of harm to people (children or adults) involved then record that fear and take the necessary action to provide protection. It was acknowledged that human mistakes might be made sometimes but the record would show that proper professional judgement had been exercised.

 

We also made it clear that if our colleagues were unsure of factors like legislation then they were not on their own and could always ask us for advice - sadly that sort of support is not available in all organisations.

 

Graham