Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
bergamotorange · 28/08/2024 17:45

purser25 · 28/08/2024 17:39

There was a female MP reported to social services completely maliciously but it will remain on the children’s records.

This is a real issue, it's just not ok. It should be a crime to make malicious reports really.

Mistaken is very different from malicious.

Autumnalove · 28/08/2024 17:49

bergamotorange · 28/08/2024 17:45

This is a real issue, it's just not ok. It should be a crime to make malicious reports really.

Mistaken is very different from malicious.

Exactly even a fine for wasting social services time should be brought in, I'm sure if a fine was introduced the amount of malicious reports would be cut down on.

OP posts:
fortheveryfirsttime · 28/08/2024 17:54

givemushypeasachance · 28/08/2024 15:42

You're unreasonable to link to a DM article that's for sure. A DM article that is just a re-hash of a piece Marina Fogle wrote for The Times.

The tl;dr and not clicking on the Fail version is: someone, apparently a neighbour, reported they were shouting at their children. Social services came by to speak to them about the concerns. The Fogles provided proof they were on holiday at the time so not even there. Social services closed the case. Malicious complaints happen.

Exactly. She must be on Mumsnet with all the shock and the trembling.

fortheveryfirsttime · 28/08/2024 17:56

MeAgainAndAgain · 28/08/2024 16:28

The thing is that Marina and Kirstie are outraged by the intrusion into their middle class parenting, but what do they think social workers are for? No one has ever phoned a sw to say I’m awful, I shout at my kids until they cry, please investigate.

And it also reminds me of a quote I read here on Mumsnet, something about an unemployed dad’s beer on the front doorstep at 4 in the afternoon is not seen in the same way as a yummy mummy’s cheeky Prosecco on the patio after the school run.

They would have been far better to write about how difficult it is to get the balance right, and how it is a shame sw get so much criticism when all they are doing is trying to protect children. But no. All they seem to have written about is me me me. Poor me. I’m a middle class mummy. How dare I be lumped in with all the poor people.

Absolutely this!

Cyclebabble · 28/08/2024 17:59

MrsTerryPratchett · 28/08/2024 16:15

You can see why they need to address it then and there, right? I mean going away and coming back at your convenience? What if something terrible was happening/happened?

Not really no. This was some weeks after the complaint as I understand it. So if I had been up to no good I could have continued to do so for a fairly prolonged period. The timing was purely to suit the social work team.

TheStroppyFeminist · 28/08/2024 18:01

I get it, I feel for the Fogles and for Kirsty although I disagree with her about almost everything else.

We had a social worker here after an incident with a pissed teenager and she agreed there should be no further action, however, her request was that I write and say "I don't give consent for you to contact other agencies" which would have made me look uncooperative to anyone reading the file.

I wrote saying "the following xxx is in place as discussed and you agreed that we don't need to do anything differently and that it would not be a good use of resources to refer us to other agencies since if you were to refer us their suggestions would likely cover everything we're already doing" - ETA I just checked, she actually emailed me saying "please confirm you don't consent" - WTAF?

It's total bullshit that I should have had to do that but I wasn't going to write to say I wasn't prepared to consent, why would I? What stupid advice.

Itsallsostressful · 28/08/2024 18:07

dottiedodah · 28/08/2024 16:55

I wonder how many tattoed burly 6 foot males with a bull mastiff ,SS have "investigated".It seems to me that interviewing high profile wealthy couples, is a soft option ,Meanwhile many children from difficult back grounds go undetected, due to involvement of police senior SS workers and so on .

As a SW I have investigated all shapes sizes and classes of people....no discrimination from me or the rest of my team.

GreyCarpet · 28/08/2024 18:17

dottiedodah · 28/08/2024 17:31

Wet Bandits .Apologies! Of course thats not what I meant .Simply that there seems to be a spate of investigating famous well off parents .Obviously many men fit your DH appearance, and are perfectly good parents .Simply that if there was someone more macho in appearance, to a gentler look both suspected of child abuse they often seem to go for the softer option!

I can tell just by reading your posts that you have absolutely no involvement in child safeguarding whatsoever.

You simply cannot judge whether someone is a good parent or an abuser by their appearance. You just can't. It's a very dangerous way of thinking.

And well presented, middle-class abusive parents are so much more difficult to identify and investigate because of the very bias you are showing. There is as much abuse in middle class families as in working class ones. But it's better hidden.

I'd also like to know who these numerous famous, well off people are and who SS didn't investigate because they were investigating them as the easy option instead.

You must be very confident of your facts to make such a bold claim.

Or you're just making it up.

Natsku · 28/08/2024 18:19

I think social services having to even make a phone call for the KA case is overkill, but responding to a report about shouting is different, as that could have been something bad.
I've had a lot of malicious reports made about me (by my ex and his parents, when we were going through a very bad custody battle), it was horrible, very very horrible, but the accusations were about serious stuff so of course I understood that the social workers had to investigate, even when they knew me and knew it was most likely malicious, they still had to investigate each time because they were alleging really bad things.

CelestialNexus · 28/08/2024 19:36

givemushypeasachance · 28/08/2024 16:34

If providing a summary means one less person clicks and gives the Fail advertising money, my morally superior work here is done.

Grin
invisiblecat · 29/08/2024 13:44

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Because you said that the person who reported it did so after hearing raised voices. They couldn't have done, since BF and family were away on holiday at the time, hence it being a false and malicious report.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread