Public sector watch

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

55 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
mph1977 said:
5CylTurbo said:
If you can get through the Fail's frothing what does the story actually tell us

underage daughter gets in relationship with much older man who gets her pregnant

mummy and daddy put their daughter and her little mistake in a flat somewhere ...

Daughter gets into a relationship with a much older man again , to whom daughter gives near enough unsupervised access ...

unexplained genital injuries ...
Yes, as you say, unexplained injuries. Yet the social services decide her new partner is guilty and she is implicated too.

The good old British way. Guilty until proven innocent (if you get the chance).



Countdown

39,990 posts

197 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
Yes, as you say, unexplained injuries. Yet the social services decide her new partner is guilty and she is implicated too.

The good old British way. Guilty until proven innocent (if you get the chance).
A relatively new boyfriend sharing a bath with his partner's young son doesn't seem slightly worrying to you?

greygoose

8,274 posts

196 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Sex offenders targeting vulnerable single mothers in order to gain access to children is obviously the fault of social workers in this laughable thread.

NPI

1,310 posts

125 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
A relatively new boyfriend sharing a bath with his partner's young son doesn't seem slightly worrying to you?
Scary that PH has members who don't seem capable of critically analysing a Daily Mail story. And one that contains some pretty staggering contradictions.

PlankWithANailIn

439 posts

150 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
A relatively new boyfriend sharing a bath with his partner's young son doesn't seem slightly worrying to you?
why should this be immediately seen as wrong, and they say the victorians had some hang ups.

When my kids were young, and more importantly when there were only two of em I shared a bath with em all the time, does this make me a pedo too?

Countdown

39,990 posts

197 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
PlankWithANailIn said:
why should this be immediately seen as wrong, and they say the victorians had some hang ups.

When my kids were young, and more importantly when there were only two of em I shared a bath with em all the time, does this make me a pedo too?
Perhaps I do have Victorian hang-ups. OTOH there appear to be a lot of warning signs there (for me at least, YMMV) and Social Services have acted on them. Damned if they do...

In your situation I'm guessing they were actually your kids and not somebody you'd just started a relationship with? Would you have let them share a bath with somebody who wasn't immediate family?

5CylTurbo

318 posts

127 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Damned if they do...
Only damned when they get it wrong which they do far too frequently. But assume you're okay with them getting it wrong despite being paid well?


Countdown

39,990 posts

197 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
5CylTurbo said:
Only damned when they get it wrong which they do far too frequently. But assume you're okay with them getting it wrong despite being paid well?
Of course I am rolleyes

You've given two examples which contradict each other - one where (apparently) it's Social Services' fault for not being aware that a child was at potential risk, one where it's Social Services fault for being aware and taking action where they thought a child was at potential risk. In neither case has any independent party suggested that Social Services were at fault. But, in your opinion, these are examples of Public Sector failure ?

Mad as a box of frogs.


Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 8th April 12:41

5CylTurbo

318 posts

127 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
5CylTurbo said:
Only damned when they get it wrong which they do far too frequently. But assume you're okay with them getting it wrong despite being paid well?
Of course I am rolleyes

You've given two examples which contradict each other - one where (apparently) it's Social Services' fault for not being aware that a child was at potential risk, one where it's Social Services fault for being aware and taking action where they thought a child was at potential risk. In neither case has any independent party suggested that Social Services were at fault. But, in your opinion, these are examples of Public Sector failure ?

Mad as a box of frogs.


Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 8th April 12:41
2? Count again

They get it wrong both ways, that is how utterly useless Social Services are, and last time I checked Social Services are part of the public sector.

And I'm the mad one? Yeah right.


valiant

10,311 posts

161 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
5CylTurbo said:
And I'm the mad one? Yeah right.
Not so much mad, more a tad unhinged.

NPI

1,310 posts

125 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
5CylTurbo said:
They get it wrong both ways,
They're even handed then.

The service would be better if there were more of them and they were paid more.

Fab32

380 posts

134 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
The problem with this particular argument is that not enough information is available to make as sensible informed judgement, snippets from the stories are used to inform a predetermined position of certain posters.

Some of the examples of poor practice in the links provided are quite shocking and some (see the Daily Mail ones) are selective bks, but without intimate knowledge of the family circumstances and also a full understanding of the child protection process its easy to be mislead.

Fab32

380 posts

134 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
NPI said:
5CylTurbo said:
They get it wrong both ways,
They're even handed then.

The service would be better if there were more of them and they were paid more.
Throwing money at the problem is not the answer I would suggest two things;

Streamline the administration process so front line social workers don’t spend 70% of their time looking at a computer, the “if it’s not written down it didn’t happen” which is a statement often said is utterly stupid.

Sort out how they monitor performance, as in sort the people out who don’t do stuff rather than inventing a silly rule that everybody has to follow because some muppets can’t follow the original rule. For example if a child needs to be visited every three weeks and some people can’t achieve it deal with them. Don’t invent a silly rule that says everybody has to visit all their children every two weeks so ‘our’ performance improves.


5CylTurbo

318 posts

127 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
NPI said:
They're even handed then.

The service would be better if there were more of them and they were paid more.
Yes equally rubbish when the child is in real peril and when the child is totally safe, you can rely on them to make the wrong decision, marvellous!

No, better to just employ better people in the first place. ex coppers, army etc.

Stop advertising in the Guardian as it seems to attract wallies with no life experience and too easily hoodwinked by the great unwashed.



Fab32

380 posts

134 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
5CylTurbo said:
NPI said:
They're even handed then.

The service would be better if there were more of them and they were paid more.
Yes equally rubbish when the child is in real peril and when the child is totally safe, you can rely on them to make the wrong decision, marvellous!

No, better to just employ better people in the first place. ex coppers, army etc.

Stop advertising in the Guardian as it seems to attract wallies with no life experience and too easily hoodwinked by the great unwashed.
The thing is you have no idea what you are talking about and it’s impossible to have a reasonable debate with somebody as badly informed as you and who is so entrenched in their opinion.

Do you have any idea what a referral and assessment social worker does? The timescales involved for the assessment/visits? The legalities of the work undertaken? How difficult it is to managing risk? Have you read the Munro report? Have you read the working together guidance? Have you read any serious case reviews?

Or is your opinion completely informed by news reports?

Please, please explain why an ex police officer or serviceman would be better placed than a social worker to undertake work with families?


Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

159 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
NPI said:
The service would be better if there were more of them and they were paid more.
One of the Five Standard Excuses:

2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse. It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit.

Thank you, Sir Humphrey.

Du1point8

21,612 posts

193 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
Hope no-one in public secotr sees what they are doing in Sweden with the trialling of 6 hour working days to reduce sick leave and raise moral.

Oh and did I mention they are all still on full pay, so they work less hours and get a huge pay rise to boot.

NPI

1,310 posts

125 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
Du1point8 said:
Hope no-one in public secotr sees what they are doing in Sweden with the trialling of 6 hour working days to reduce sick leave and raise moral.

Oh and did I mention they are all still on full pay, so they work less hours and get a huge pay rise to boot.
How is getting the same pay "a huge pay rise"?

chris watton

22,477 posts

261 months

Wednesday 9th April 2014
quotequote all
NPI said:
Du1point8 said:
Hope no-one in public secotr sees what they are doing in Sweden with the trialling of 6 hour working days to reduce sick leave and raise moral.

Oh and did I mention they are all still on full pay, so they work less hours and get a huge pay rise to boot.
How is getting the same pay "a huge pay rise"?
I'd hazard a guess and say less hours for same pay=pay rise?