Protecting social workers

[Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62/episod
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social workers.
Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she was quite happy
to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

[Big Les Wade]

"Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62/episod
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social workers.
Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she was quite happy
to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Yes, and did you notice the case they were discussing, how it suddenly
switched from "poor little girl at risk from mother's violent partner"
to "out of control teenage bitch who keeps threatening people with
knives and I'm not going near her." The transition was made entirely
seamlessly and without any admission that they'd misjudged it in the
first place.

No-one at any stage stated anything violent that the mother's partner
had actually *done* or even threatened, but the social workers insisted
that he was excluded from the house anyway. And then they noticed that
the mum, who then had to cope with this violent girl on her own, was at
the end of her teather. Stupid bastards.

[Joe]

Post by Big Les Wade
"Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62/episod
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social workers.
Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she was quite happy
to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Yes, and did you notice the case they were discussing, how it suddenly
switched from "poor little girl at risk from mother's violent partner"
to "out of control teenage bitch who keeps threatening people with
knives and I'm not going near her." The transition was made entirely
seamlessly and without any admission that they'd misjudged it in the
first place.
No-one at any stage stated anything violent that the mother's partner
had actually *done* or even threatened, but the social workers insisted
that he was excluded from the house anyway. And then they noticed that
the mum, who then had to cope with this violent girl on her own, was at
the end of her teather. Stupid bastards.

But that is exactly how social workers pan it out. The more disturbed
the kids end up the better for the social workers.

[...]

Remember the old adage: 'Those who can't, teach'? It's the same for
social work, but think of the same effect multiplied many times over.
At least there is some academic effort required to become a
teacher;social workers get by on a reliance upon the simple expediency
of necessity - there are never enough of 'em (apparently), so anyone
who expresses an interest quickly gets dragooned into working for them
(as last night's programme aptly demonstrated).

It was also interesting to note, unremarked upon by the programme's
makers, how few (if any) men there were working in the social work
team featured. Still, recent CRB legislation and the pall of
presumptive guilt it casts over all men, put paid to any lingering
chance of a sudden rise in the number of men interested in working
with children and vulnerable adults coming forward. The frightening
thing is that idiotic law is largely shaped by such inept, ill-
equipped buffoons as those shown in lat night's programme.
satisfyingly, they reap what they sow.

Having worked many years ago in social services I can vouch for the
programme's unflinching authenticity as a portrayal of the generally
p*sspoor caliber of both the staff employed within the service and the
service as a whole. It's staggering to think that in the 20-odd years
since I last worked within the world of social care things have not
only comprehensively failed to improve, but seem - on the back of
countless new laws and regulations - to have gotten progressively
worse.

I suspect you can say as much about many of our 'frontline' social
services - staffed by cretins and morons who simply see the job as a
means to an end rather than the vocation it was intended to be. You
get the level of staff you deserve, after all. Just look at the UK
police force these days. After a decade of unrestrained over-
indulgence by successive NuLabour Home Secretaries, I doubt you'll
find a better example of what happens when you put uniforms on a bunch
of self-interested thugs and let them run unfettered through the
British legal system.

Let's hope 'Call Me Dave' and his chums will take a knife to that
particular cancer and cut the bugger out.

[Ste]

Post by ...
Remember the old adage: 'Those who can't, teach'?

I remember such a cliche. I'm not sure it qualifies as an "old adage".

[Max Demian]

Post by Ste

Post by ...
Remember the old adage: 'Those who can't, teach'?

I remember such a cliche. I'm not sure it qualifies as an "old adage".

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches."

George Bernard Shaw, "Maxims for Revolutionists", 1903.

[Nigel Oldfield]

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social workers.

So it goes.

WM

[smurf]

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62/episod
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social
workers. Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she
was quite happy to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but
no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Surely a social worker would be on £32,000 +

[Nigel Oldfield]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62...
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social
workers. Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she
was quite happy to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but
no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Surely a social worker would be on 32,000 +

The two newbies (inc the mole) were like 'triage' social workers.

Social worker: Salary and conditions

* Range of typical starting salaries: £23,500 - £30,000 (salary
data collected Aug 09).
* Range of typical salaries in first management roles (with two or
three years' experience): £30,000 - £42,000 (salary data collected Aug
09).

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/p/types_of_job/social_worker_salary.jsp

WM

[Big Les Wade]

Post by Nigel Oldfield

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62...
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social
workers. Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she
was quite happy to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but
no way was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Surely a social worker would be on 32,000 +

The two newbies (inc the mole) were like 'triage' social workers.
Social worker: Salary and conditions
* Range of typical starting salaries: £23,500 - £30,000 (salary
data collected Aug 09).
* Range of typical salaries in first management roles (with two or
three years' experience): £30,000 - £42,000 (salary data collected Aug
09).
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/p/types_of_job/social_worker_salary.jsp

Also, because of the huge predominance of women in the job, a lot of
them are on part-time or job-share contracts.

[nonanon]

Post by smurf

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-62/

episod

Post by smurf

Post by Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
e-1
nothing to do with protecting kids, all about protecting social
workers. Especially the fat one chomping on crisps while saying she was
quite happy to sit at a desk form filling for her 18 grand, but no way
was
she going to visit the scum outside her secure office.

Surely a social worker would be on £32,000 +

She wasn't a qualified registered social worker. She (as was the camera
man) was a "Child Support Worker"; someone who visited families to
provide support. But she was being asked to do actual social work;
they'd both been asked to do full on assessment forms etc.

It's worrying that because there's a lack of real social workers local
authorities are using poorly trained unregistered unqualified poorly paid
workers to do the work of real social workers.

[Big Les Wade]

Post by nonanon
She wasn't a qualified registered social worker. She (as was the camera
man) was a "Child Support Worker"; someone who visited families to
provide support. But she was being asked to do actual social work;
they'd both been asked to do full on assessment forms etc.
It's worrying that because there's a lack of real social workers local
authorities are using poorly trained unregistered unqualified poorly paid
workers to do the work of real social workers.

There isn't a well defined line between what child support workers are
supposed to do and what social workers are supposed to do. It's a matter
of negotiation, first of all in terms of general guidelines and second
in terms of interpreting the guidelines at individual case level.

The result is that both sides are forever trying to shove caseload onto
the other, and moaning about the fact that they are asked to do things
they say the others should be doing.