No wonder child protection in Haringay is such a mess when this kind of gobbledigook passes for English

[mabanana]

From the Guardian:
A conference in January will focus on improving child protection.
Sharon Shoesmith will be a key speaker. Her topic: 'Breaking Down Silos: Inspiring Ownership and Sharing Responsibility For Measuring Impacts and Outcomes Across Partnerships.'

Now, wtf is that supposed to mean? It actually makes me quite angry that this kind of doublespeak is being used. It cannot help people think clearly about what must be done. It is the kind of language that makes it OK to sack and legally silence whistleblowers who want to say, in plain English, something is wrong here and we are failing children.

Ok, let's find a middle ground to this. Of course Social Work, as a profession, would benefit from money being ploughed into a thorough investigation, into training, streamlining of administrative processes and recruitment.

However very few social workers relish the thought of going into child protection. Why? because as beanie has illustrated it is bloody scary. You are nobody's favourite person, the threat to your personal security is very real, as well as the emotional impact of dealing with very troubled families.

It is impossible for any of us to answer why the 50 or 60 opportunities to 'remove ' baby P were not taken - none of us accompanied the professionals on these occasions(I guess many agencies were involved with him). we really cannot accurately say what prevented effective action taking place - whether legislative, beaurocratic, 'group think' or plain old incompetence.

We have to trust that a thorough investigation will reaveal why and what can be done to improve the situation both locally and nationally.

Moreover the public perception of Social Work needs improving. We desperately need to recruit new and vital social workers to child protection. Without this the morale will be rock bottom, if it isnt already.

Dittany. Where do you get your information from I wonder? How do you know these things for sure?

How do you know Haringey 'ignored' opinions? Did you read it in the Daily Mail or the Sun perhaps?

Far from being sanctimonious I'm trying to be considered. I'm not the one finger pointing am I?

However folk like you will believe what fits in with your general world view regardless of what actually happened. Which even you have to concede, no one really knows at the moment.

Oh and I am sure low morale will really help Social Workers protect vulnerable kids.

Reading those articles makes me sooo glad I am not a social worker. God knows how hard it must be to be to deal with those terrible situations day in day out and the emotional stamina needed.

It is very depressing reading for all kinds of reasons. What a job!

Dittany at least we cant accuse you of being a tree huggin' GUARDIAN reader, eh?

Response to OP:

Hmm, sounds like a farming paper. clearly the farmer's grain store has somehow jammed (hence the need for 'breaking down' the silo), and he needs to find his farm boy and give him a good kicking ('sharing responsibility' with added youth protection issues), and then ask him if it hurt ('measuring impact'), and make him promise to get help in the future ('outcome across partnerships').

Sorry, facetious I know.

Some people (academics) can get awfully wrapped up in their subject.

I remember doing a particular module in college years ago and the tutor in reference to some guys incomprehensible gabble said, "That guy has his brains in a jar" and this course was mass communications module for a diploma in PR. Ha!

Part of the course rather. It's also very telling that the vast majority of people in Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty because we couldn't understand a feckin word of it.

I am shocked that a SW working with a child at risk would not have to look closely - let's just say face and hands- at a child he/she was coming to visit. I am sure it is a difficult job but can someone explain to me why this isn't part of the very difficult, terrible job they have to do every day when assessing at risk children.

I thought 'well done Ireland' at the time, Mhamai.

Always worth remembering the US Constitution is a. brief and b. can be understood by your average 12yo. Official documents do not have to be jargon-ridden and incomprehensible.

We're not called "cute hoors" for nothing edam.

Not being a SW Crush I am not qualified to reply to your question accurately. However I am wodering if it is part of their remit to 'examine' a child? Perhaps they themselves could be accused if a parent became annoyed at what they might view as 'inappropriate touching'?

What about a system of randomly chosen people to monitor the work of people in charge of children & people at risk? They could take an oath of confidentiality

If anyone else had seen the house & circumstances of Baby P they would have been shocked enough to realise that it wasn't right.

Well ok let's just have non- qualified people doing the job of SWs then. Chuck 'em in sink or swim. Whaddya think?

Cups, seriously, the legal knowledge needed for Social Work would mean that your suggestion couldn't work.

No I'm not, but I have worked alongside many social workers in a previous voluntary sector job - I have some knowledge -enough to know that I didnt want to train to be one!

Yes but Governors look at the running of the school not monitoring the teaching, dunno about police authorities.

Simply I interpreted Cups' comment along the lines that the baby P situation could have been handled better by a non-qualified person. Probably because she mentions that 'if any one else had seen the house and circumstances of baby P they would have been shocked enough to know it wasn't right' Perhaps this is not what she meant.

And I might add, enough knowledge about the profession to have garnered respect for the individuals I worked alongside.

I would love there to be more public involvement. It might help a child and it would certainly help people understand the difficulties and dilemmas. Sadly, confidentiality is a real issue here, hopefully not insurmountable.

izyboy- I don't know how to get the balance right, but at the moment is is so wrong - that is obvious.

I need to have an ongoing relationship with SS. If I need anything I try to think at least a year in ahead- because everything I have applied for from SS (straightforward stuff) has taken over a year to put in place. It takes a year because letters go unanswered, phone messages aren't returned, I'm not given Form 359b which supposedly I should have filled in 6 months ago, then someone else 'forgets' which street I live on and so on and so forth. None of this is rocket science, it's just pure system incompetence.

I my case this is irritating, costs us as a family money and has endangered my son's wellbeing on 4 occasions, but it's not child protection. I can only imagine the inability to return a phone call is the same in CP and I'm not surprised therefore that children continue to be killed whilst under the supposed care/watch of SS.

I just thought isn't that why we have democratically elected councillors?

Also the 'lay person/people' would need to have intimate and detailed knowledge of all the the cases at any one point to have a true overview. I cant see how it would be workable in the way Cups suggests.

OK Jim Jam I respect that this is your experience. I am sure that many professions have similar incidents that could be used against them in a similar manner. All I can give is my own experience too and I have no invested interests as I am now a SAHM.