officials who fail to protect children would face jail

[London424]

RobinOakapple said:

mph1977 said:

i don;'t think you understand the levle of evidence required for Fitness to Practice,

You are obviously involved with this stuff in your work, but if you want to comment on it to people who have other lines of work it would be desirable to at least outline what 'Fitness to Practice' means in this context.

There's plenty about my line of work that you don't understand, but if I wanted to talk about it here I would put it into terms that you did.

Now you know the terminology can't you just google it?

[RobinOakapple]

London424 said:

RobinOakapple said:

mph1977 said:

i don;'t think you understand the levle of evidence required for Fitness to Practice,

You are obviously involved with this stuff in your work, but if you want to comment on it to people who have other lines of work it would be desirable to at least outline what 'Fitness to Practice' means in this context.

There's plenty about my line of work that you don't understand, but if I wanted to talk about it here I would put it into terms that you did.

Now you know the terminology can't you just google it?

I could, but I'm not that interested. If it's important to his point, he should tell us what about it we need to know so as to make his point clearly.

[markcoznottz]

Digga said:

Why don;t public officials get properly fired? What;s wrong with public sector HR policy?

How, for example, did the tt who was 'running' Stafford hospital during its worst years manage to drift into another public health sector job (plus pension etc. etc.) in the very next county?

Common purpose.

[crankedup]

Whatever is wrong within the current system obviously needs fixing, what is wrong, I have no idea.
Crap management,inadequate resources, general incompetence, likely loads more could be identified within individual Authorities and less so in others.
Whatever, it will arrive on the door step of those in the front-line at some point. Will these staff want the additional burdens of bureaucracy and accountability with the possible threats of penalties being applied to what must must be already a stressful job. It is already said that staff dealing with these issues are leaving in droves suggesting it is no longer worthwhile.
Perhaps a complete root and branch overhaul is required of the system, tinkering around the edges bears no fruit?

[R666]

Too many comments in this thread bleating about lack of resources, its just due to the election, its difficult, people will leave their jobs.

FFS 1000's of young people have been systematically abused by scum. Authorities charged with their protection (their job, for which they are well paid and receive gold plated pensions) didn't just make some errors of judgement, they lied, covered up, ignored the problem. They said the victims were at fault, they shut down investigations. Due to political correctness they lied about the fact that certain ethnic groups with different moral standards singled out and abused white british children. Due to political correctness and appeasement, they knowingly let it continue.

The damage done to 1000's of innocent children will have massive impact on their lives, on those around them and future generations - but as its too hard to deal with, lets just moan about how hard it is

[grumbledoak]

crankedup said:

Whatever, it will arrive on the door step of those in the front-line at some point. Will these staff want the additional burdens of bureaucracy and accountability with the possible threats of penalties being applied to what must must be already a stressful job. It is already said that staff dealing with these issues are leaving in droves suggesting it is no longer worthwhile.

As far as I can tell, the Climbie case aside, many front line staff are doing their level best to protect children and are being prevented from doing so by hatchet-faced Common Purpose harridans who seem to waltz from failure to failure with only dead bodies and a payrise to show for it.

We need to support those staff trying to do a good job, and the whistleblowers. Gaol for the shinybottoms is just pre-election waffle. It won't happen. But the sack, with loss of pension, for those taking a salary to protect children while not doing it is the least we all deserve.

[eccles]

Digga said:

Why don;t public officials get properly fired? What;s wrong with public sector HR policy?

How, for example, did the tt who was 'running' Stafford hospital during its worst years manage to drift into another public health sector job (plus pension etc. etc.) in the very next county?

At that sort of level it seems you can't fail, whether it's private sector or public sector. Time and again you hear of board members or CEO's getting a golden parachute to leave, just to pop up in a similar role with a different company/health trust/council a few months later.

[mph1977]

grumbledoak said:

<snip> But the sack, with loss of pension, for those taking a salary to protect children while not doing it is the least we all deserve.

unfortunately all you can do with a contributory pension is freeze it , unless the misconduct lead to an increase in pensionable pay elements - where the fraudulent ciontributions can be discounted .

[aw51 121565]

grumbledoak said:

As far as I can tell, the Climbie case aside, many front line staff are doing their level best to protect children and are being prevented from doing so by hatchet-faced Common Purpose harridans who seem to waltz from failure to failure with only dead bodies and a payrise to show for it.

We need to support those staff trying to do a good job, and the whistleblowers. Gaol for the shinybottoms is just pre-election waffle. It won't happen. But the sack, with loss of pension, for those taking a salary to protect children while not doing it is the least we all deserve.

So how many people would have been sacked sans pension after "Baby P"? That sad case was down to the (in)actions of a fair number of professionals across a few different services with a duty of (among other obligations) "child protection". Ironically - and of extreme concern bearing in mind that Baby P was abused around a decade later than Victoria Climbie - they both lived in the same local authority area and were under the care of the same social services (Haringey).

Labour's answer to Climbie? A database by the name of "Contactpoint" (which was abandoned at the last minute)...

Ed Balls's answer to Baby P? Sack the boss - and we all know how well that went!! (How much was she paid out for unfair dismissal by him?? )

Truly, utterly out of touch, politicians and their advisers nowadays (and back then as well) .

[grumbledoak]

aw51 121565 said:

So how many people would have been sacked sans pension after "Baby P"? That sad case was down to the (in)actions of a fair number of professionals across a few different services with a duty of (among other obligations) "child protection".

The 'doctor' who failed to spot his broken ribs was struck off IIRC. Good riddance to bad rubbish. There should have been several of those in the social services. Balls had the right idea though; I doubt I'll say that very often but credit where it is due.