Shannon Matthews alive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense!

[/ QUOTE ]

they certainly are if collectively they continue to get bad results.........

good job they aren't on piecework..
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ] A sensible view of this has to take account of the market. The best people don't remain in poorly paid jobs and for the level of responsibilty and high stress that is part and parcel of being a child care social worker, it is a poorly paid job! So you have a group of avarage, some below avarage graduates who are then poorly trained and poorly managed. The blame lies at the feet of the system, not the individual social worker!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but you are wrong in saying that they are employed at some considerable expense!

[/ QUOTE ]

they certainly are if collectively they continue to get bad results.........

good job they aren't on piecework..
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ] A sensible view of this has to take account of the market. The best people don't remain in poorly paid jobs and for the level of responsibilty and high stress that is part and parcel of being a child care social worker, it is a poorly paid job! So you have a group of avarage, some below avarage graduates who are then poorly trained and poorly managed. The blame lies at the feet of the system, not the individual social worker!

[/ QUOTE ]

surely a poorly trained and a poorly managed social worker can tell the difference between an abused child a not abused child???...given their not inconsiderable training?

i'm sorry...but "blaming the system" doesnt wash with me...

and before you say the trainings flawed....havent these people got voices?
can they not ask questions?
do they not voice an opinion?
 
mmm I could add more to the mix but will not comment or speculate about the Shannon case on an open public forum for fear of libel as we do not know the true and accurate facts surrounding the little girl's disappearance. All that we ( as the public) know is what information has been released to the press.
For what it is worth I too have little faith in Social Services. I have had a friend who had dealings with them and I also know someone who deals with them and I dare not repeat on a public forum what professional misjudgements have taken place.
A very basic requirement for any post that involves children and involves the provision of care, protection and advice for them - and that includes social workers, health visitors etc - should be that the candidates are of a certain age and should also have had children themselves before they can qualify to be trained for the position!
I feel very strongly about this and I do think that is why there are so many children that slip through the protection net and are basically let down by a department whose job it is to protect vulnerable young people.
Only the other day I had a lady telephone me about donating to the NSPCC through DD. While I would have normally considered doing this the lady employed tactics to try and emotionally blackmail me and she conveyed a story to me about abuse as an example of what my money would be spent towards trying to help stamp out.
I pointed out that while their charity was a good one and that they offered support to children most of the children they were helping was due to the failings of the Social Services department.
I do not mind giving money to help others at all but I do not agree with mopping up after the mistakes and failings of others.
I know that not every social worker is unprofessional and 'good' ones do exist but my personal experience of a proportion of these individuals is not a good one.
If money and time is an issue then perhaps the government should consider diverting more funds to this department in order to train and employ more people.
However like I have already mentioned I don't believe that to be the answer to the overall problem.
My overall view of Social Services seems to fail by its very staff in that there are individuals who are either over zealous or else fail to recognise important child protection issues.
I cannot comment any further by what I have said due to confidentiality but my comments and views are founded by what I have seen and heard.
 
Child protection is much more complex than that! Has the child been abused or was it an accident? If its been physically abused or neglected, who did it? Can the parent protect it from abuse/neglect/further abuse/neglect? If not, can resources be put in place to enable the parent to do this or should we remove the child and place it in a children's home or with foster parents (if there are any places available) (both happy hunting grounds for paedophiles). If it is removed can it safely have contact with parents and siblings? If so, supervised or unsupervised. And that is just Physical abuse and Neglect. Its even more foggy with sexual abuse, psychological abuse and corruption (and these cause much more long term damage than most physical abuse). Could you wade through that with inadequate training and management. If they speak up about the problems, they find themselves out of a job, so we are back to the best having left!


That aside though, what is your answer then? Have no child protection? Or do it differently i.e. change the system?
 
[ QUOTE ]
A very basic requirement for any post that involves children and involves the provision of care, protection and advice for them - and that includes social workers, health visitors etc - should be that the candidates are of a certain age and should also have had children themselves before they can qualify to be trained for the position!


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice thought; I can see where you're coming from, but for this to have real relevance they would also need to have experienced bringing up their children in the sort of destructive poverty that afflicts a lot (the majority?) of their clients; the substandard housing, the healthcare shortfall, the poor employment prospects, the shortage of- everything, really, that money can buy.

Otherwise we would be left with a situation like that in which that patronising idiot of an MP (forget who he was now)-with, doubtless, a warm, dry house; a wardrobe full of clothes; a fridge full of food; a paid-up supply of electricity etc. & 2 weeks in the Bahamas to look forward to, made a big show out of surviving for a couple weeks on £40 a week, saying that it really wasn't too difficult so what were the poor complaining about?

(I must say that despite the undeniable and unforgiveable horror stories, the couple of social workers I've met personally have actually both been clued up, sympathetic, dedicated intelligent people. My own bugbear is the incredible incompetence and overbearing attitude of council Housing Depts, who IMO create a lot of the problems that the Social Services have to deal with.)
 
The MP was Michael Portillo if I remember correctly.
I can see where you are coming from too but from the point of view of social workers etc having brought up their children I meant that they could bring life experience into a job. Being able to recognise simple signs in a baby such as colic, hungry, cold, ill, distressed. Likewise being able to recognise when a mum needs help or time out. How can you recognise the signs of a mum who has post natal depression or who is running on empty unless you have raised your own child and been up throughout the night feeding and changing baby or dealing with any issues.
Without sounding ageist but how could a young pip squeak just out of education who has then qualified as a social worker who's own experience of children would only be if they had had younger brother or sisters be able to empathise and recognise basic child welfare unless they had actually raised their own children themselves?
That was what I meant about having had children.
The class issue doesn't really come into although if I were to train for such a role I could identify with many of the clients having experienced housing issues and monetary problems in the past.
I will still never be convinced by the role of social services until there is a change to the service and it undertakes a complete overhaul.
I also have some knowledge of the fostering and adoption system as a former good friend was - and still is one as far as I know- one and I was told stories of incompetence by that person too.
So like I have said I have little faith in the system through my own experiences but that does not mean my overall assumption of social services is wholly correct because others have had more positive experiences.
But there is a need for change. How many more lives will be affected and how many children be put at risk unnecessarily before the decision makers recognise that requirement?
 
By that criteria all police officers should have been offenders, all solicitors should have been defendants, all nurses and dcotros should have been patients (in what ever specialism they work in)
As a psychiatric social worker I whould have suffered from schizophrenia (all versions of it), Bi-polar disorder, depression, all the Known varieties of personality disorder and complex PTSD, NOT POSSIBLE i'M AFRAID
smile.gif
 
Well, you've heard the expression "Poacher turned gamekeeper!"

I think in any field its those who have empathy with their clientele who are most competent & successful.

No.... by analogy you wouldn't have needed to personally HAVE these disorders, but to have experienced the effects of such a disorder on your personal, private life; perhaps through a relative being a sufferer.

Maybe not a totally practical requirement - but I think in a lot of areas we will have seen the effects of the person with the paper qualification & no practical experience trying to cope in the real world. (A few years ago this was very true of the horse world; and I've seen a young girl with BHS qualifications totally at a loss as to what to do with a stroppy young horse; she'd never had to deal with one in the super-safe environment in which she had been taught. I'm not suggesting, of course that she ought to BE a horse in order to be qualified; just that she should have had experience of the real article
wink.gif
).

Trouble is, with something like social work- or council housing offices- the inexperienced "expert" still has a lot of power over the most personal aspects of people's lives.
 
"By that criteria all police officers should have been offenders, all solicitors should have been defendants, all nurses and dcotros should have been patients (in what ever specialism they work in)
As a psychiatric social worker I whould have suffered from schizophrenia (all versions of it), Bi-polar disorder, depression, all the Known varieties of personality disorder and complex PTSD, NOT POSSIBLE i'M AFRAID"

That was not was I was suggesting so please don't go twisting my words on this forum.
I could not care less if you are a social worker or not to be honest.
I have valid reasons for my responses on this forum and I am not at liberty to discuss the reasons and cases behind my perception of social services.
Confidentiality laws are there for a reason within professions especially health and social care.
All I can say is that I have both seen and heard about errors of judgement and mistakes that should not have been made and the majority of the time this was done by jumped up -their own arses - newly qualified and young social workers with no children and no experience with them!
Mistakes that could have seriously endangered the lives of some children.
So please don't go preaching about social services and what they do and don't do and what indeed you do.
You cannot speak for the whole profession just as I cannot speak for the rest of the members of this forum.
If I criticise anybody it is with good reason.
I don't lie or elaborate the truth to the extent that it is far fetched.
If I could quote the cases and information that I know without any implications for the people involved I would. However with respect to professionals and breeching confidentiality I cannot say what I want to say and that does frustrate me as I am the kind of person who likes to give and quote reasons behind any comments or decisions I make.
I think we will most probably agree to disagree and that is personal choice. However I was angered by your flippant and rather pedantic remark about police should be former offenders etc as that was not what my comments were referring to and you should have understand that given your professional understanding.
 
IM sorry but to become a social worker takes lots of time and effort at college then university and then once qualified you still have to continue your training. social workers are now registered which has to be renewed yearly and every three years you have to complete forms showing the training you have completed.

There are lots of social workers out there doing a fantastic job within society and it is due to bad media that gives social workers a bad name. I mean how many papers would be sold if the headlines said "social worker keeps children within the family by supporting the family through hard times" not many!
 
As you will see from my earlier posts, I think the training and CPD is inadequate, so I guess we disagree there (and yes I know they go to Uni and are registered, but that alone doesn't make it adequate - there are lots of inadequate uni courses!). I Also find that they are short staffed and lack support from their Management!

My opinions are based on my extensive experiences of working many of the same cases, not on media reports!
 
Perhaps as you described Social Workers as monkeys you would like to tell us what job you do? You obviously have a very poor opinion of EVERYONE who has taken on a role that many people would not have the patience, skill or courage to do. The remuneration is not good, it is on a par with nursing with regards to salary, another set of monkeys perhaps?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps as you described Social Workers as monkeys you would like to tell us what job you do? You obviously have a very poor opinion of EVERYONE who has taken on a role that many people would not have the patience, skill or courage to do. The remuneration is not good, it is on a par with nursing with regards to salary, another set of monkeys perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, hey! Are you sure you are not confusing me with another poster or skim reading my posts? Just where have I described SWs as Monkeys? I think SWs have a unfair rough time. I have met several along the way who were very good at the job - too good to be treated badly (too many cases, too poor management) and paid badly. Inevitably, one after another they have left and gone to work for what used to be called the Guardian ad Litum Service or a NHS multi-discilpinary team! I have no doubt that there are a small number of good ones in social work still trying to soldier on.

I certainly wouldn't be a SW, they are expected to do the impossible without even being provided the resources to do the avarage!
 
Many social worker who work within NHS multi-disciplinary teams are actually still employed by Social Services, and indeed must be to be ASW's. If it wasn't your post which stated that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys then I apologise, but I was pretty sure it was.
 
I know they are still employed as SWs in a lot of NHS multi-disciplinary teams. My point is that they are not doing the job of field workers. Rather than referring to poor SWs I probably would have been better referring to field workers.

I may have used the 'you pay peanuts, you get monkeys' phrase. I didn't mean that SW generally are monkeys, but that the best tend to leave field work due to the conditions and poor pay. I have to say that most of the field workers I have met (in Child Protection) who haven't either later left field work, or told me they intended too, have been pretty poor
frown.gif


Two close fiends are trained SWs and were desparate to get out. One was a team leader (on ridiculously low pay for the level of responsibility), the other a field worker who moved to a multi-disciplinary NHS mental health team after a baby died due to management refusing to listen to her concerns (and even telling her that if she knew what was good for her, she would stop making waves). She had been the trained SW on the case before she was moved off it and a untrained support worker allocated!

As I said earlier, I don't think the the problems are caused by SWs, but by the awful system which is done on the cheap!
 
You did indeed use that phrase and also suggested that the people who went into social work were the poorest graduates. I think you will agree that this is a combination which suggests the deepest disrespect for every member of that profession.
 
Well, people with a good academic qualification ARE going to want to get a financial return from it and ARE going to move out of a stressful or ill-paid job - because they can. That's how it is.

What saddens me is that academic success should figure at all in this; I suspect that the very LAST thing that makes a good social worker is having a "good" degree.

Over the years I've come to realise that the world goes round largely because a lot of not-very-well qualified or paid people are in fact very good at their jobs, and its very, very wrong to assume that the people who are at liberty to move up in a profession are actually the most competent. I once wanted to be a teacher & studied for a year at a Teacher Training college- (Horrible!-definately not for me-I was totally inadequate and so thankful to leave)- but it was very noticeable that that particular college was largely staffed by academically well qualified but not-very-good teachers, enjoying the enhanced salary and social standing of lecturing, whilst on the run from the classroom...
 
Not necessarily, and it is a generalisation which needs to be challenged, otherwise these ridiculous comments will be seen as the truth about a profession which has a majority of dedicated, well trained and motivated people in it. Some of us stay because we believe that the job we do is worthwhile and of value to society as a whole. I believe that is the case with nurses as well, god help the rest of societ,y if we all work on the assumption that you should get out of stressful jobs and be better paid.
 
[ QUOTE ]
god help the rest of societ,y if we all work on the assumption that you should get out of stressful jobs and be better paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL YorkG- no offence intended, but I can see you there on your own while everybody else is doing just that!

I'm afraid IMO the only reason to stick in an ill paid job when you can get out of it, is that you love it; & I think more than half of that is the people you work with. Being of use to society- hmm....(True I wouldn't want to be in something I felt really unethical). But I wouldn't now stay in a stressful job, if I had any choice, unless I was paid accordingly.

Edited to say that being of use to society may be part of the reason you enjoy a job; if so, great; but staying in a job where you are undervalued & unhappy out of a sense of duty is the way to a nervous breakdown IMO; I used to do this stuff and eventually realised that my employers were taking the mick, and the more I allowed myself to be used as a doormat the more I would be treated as one.....
 
[ QUOTE ]
Suddenly realised I haven't told you what I DO....

I'm what they call a CAD Monkey!!
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ] I may be being dense, but what is that?
confused.gif
 
Disparaging term for <font color="blue"> C </font> omputer <font color="blue"> A </font> ided <font color="blue"> D </font> raughting / Design technician, used by architects, engineers and the like (behind our backs... usually
grin.gif
).

A little while ago, when computer-aided anything was a bit of a Black Art, CAD people could earn very big wages (not that I ever did- except ONCE, for 6 glorious weeks, on an agency posting)- and this caused a bit of bad feeling with their professional masters, who saw (to them) unqualified people holding them to ransom.

Monkey as in -"a monkey could do it...." even if an architect couldn't...
grin.gif


Basically I draw using AutoCAD. My present firm (Civil &amp; Structural Engineers) 'bought' me off the agency and I have a permanent job at last- modest wage, but lovely, lovely people, and a job I really enjoy.

Off now to get a banana-
wink.gif
 
smile.gif
Well computors are as worthwhile as health and social work in these modern times.

I also agree with you about worthwhile jobs. Mine is very worthwhile and has a great deal of instrinsic satisfaction. Without the good extrinsic reward though, I would just as soon spend my days riding my mare and walking my dogs
wink.gif
 
my reply ay be totally irellevent(sp)...but that programme on CH4 last night was total carcrash TV.....

methinks the family were totally in on the scam...ie getting a large ransom from the "alledged" abduction...


her so called mother wants shooting...............
 
The Social Services in Leeds would have had no interest in this family as they live in the Kirklees LA area, if this is incorrect then how much of the rest of the article can you believe?
 
I think they come under one whole band though. I am in Essex and ours although we are under a borough council we all come under the banner of Essex County Council. I know it cant be nice for the family reading this, but can you say hand on heart that you didnt think something was amiss at the start? maybe it is because I have worked with childrens services/child protection that I noticed something or was slightly more paranoid then the rest, I dont know, I just think there is more than meets the eye
 
No I can assure you that this family would be looked after by Kirklees council, do you believe that this family is more worthy of your oprobium than the McCanns, this child was nine years old and was walking home from junior school as her mother was collecting her younger brother from the infant school a mile away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top