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.

" this is a profession and Social Workers have to undergo academic training to qualify."

• so what? Decent academic training should help them learn to use plain English and express themselves clearly, even in complex issues.

"As a result it is expected that they will be able to use terminology and language that is not in everyday parlance."

Expected by whom? And who benefits from this absurd expectation? Certainly not the community they are supposed to serve.

"It is the nature of any professional workplace that's all."

Nonsense. It is rather what some silly people imagine gives themselves greater status and respectability.

I am not saying I would personally enjoy sitting through a conference entrenched in 'corporate speak,' however I would see it as mildly irritating and maybe a bit 'old fashioned'.

I seriously don't think it is a trait particular to Social Work conferences however.

Upwind seriously I think you will find plenty of plain speaking in Social Work, however if needed most Social Workers would also be able to rise to the occasion and not be put off by a bit of corporate speak in a conference.

I doubt it is a deliberate attempt to 'confuse' outsiders- it is what it is - one conference picked out by the OP to fit in with their view of Social Workers.

Just seen the Panorama programme. Very poignant. And horrifying that Haringey are still reacting to every single instance of wrongdoing with a blanket denial of anything other than perfection.

To clarify earlier posts, when I talk about SWs fucking up or SW as a profession being in trouble, that isn't restricted to front-line staff - I mean managers all the way up to the director of children's services. Panorama certainly suggested the rot went all the top, as we all suspected.

Looks like while there were failings at the front line, any attempt to do the right thing, by SWs or the police or doctors was squashed by management. And appalling that the SW in charge of Baby P had an almost identical caseload to Lisa Arthurworrey. Why the hell did they not act after Victoria Climbie and say, right, one of the reasons we let that child be abused and tortured was that the SW was overstretched, we must make sure SWs have caseloads they can cope with?

You are so paranoid Izyboy! You can say what you like about me, but it doesn't make it anything but a figment of your fevered imagination. Yup, I had a whole list of headings of talks given by Shoesmith (er, how?) and deliberately picked this one

to be fair to SWs, those at the sharp end don't have much choice about the language used in the system - their bosses get plaudits for speaking bollocks and endless banging on about bollocks.

We get all of this (usually very expensively printed) nonsense from our local council's Early Years dept. That and invitations to endless forums, meaningless 'monitoring' forms and requests for time and money wasting meetings.

"You misread. I was talking about her new baby, in that context poor little Baby P was another one of her children. What moron thinks a mother who has been charged with killing one of her children in the most terrible abusive circumstances, needs to bond with the latest one she has given birth to? It's beyond belief. "

Was it because she was charged but not at that point convicted? If someone was charged, had their new baby taken away at birth, and was subsequently found not guilty I imagine there would be an outcry?

Kathy, Fran Lyon's baby would have been taken away at birth because of a perceived risk - surely in this case there was ample evidence that P's mother was not fit to care for a newborn?

Izyboy - several highly educated people on this thread have struggled to make sense of even the title to Sharon Shoesmith's talk, myself included. Why do you think such gobbldigook is used, if not to exclude those who can't make sense of it and to distance the speakers from the subject matter? This kind of language, used without need, does not show that the speakers are professionals but rather that they are pretentious.

Yes it is an extraordinary contrast isn't it Upwind - on the one hand a baby can be removed without any evidence of harm, on the other there is mountains of evidence and yet it is ignored.

I agree with you, I was just making the point that someone being charged with something doesn't in itself mean they have done it. It would be wrong to say, as a general principle, they have been charged therefore we should treat them as if guilty. Even if in this case they obviously should.

Well it is not paranoia that leads me to that conclusion mabanana, the manner of your post leads one to perceive that you did not choose that conference heading to show Social Work in a particulrly positive light. Although personally I have little problem with the heading.

Whether or not you had a whole list to choose from seems irrelevent really. You have used it to try to fit around your mindset regarding Social Work -big deal. let's move on from accusing others of having mental health issues shall we? I suggest you look at your own state of mind first before concerning yourself about others.

Smallwhitecat as a lawyer I guess you are well placed to understand how the English language can be used best for 'petty fogging'. In my experience of attending seminars of this nature it is rarely an issue for those involved in running the service, however if it was a seminar for service users then that may be different and plainer language might be preferrable.

Thing is though we are not supposed tio understand it are we?

Social workers should know what it means, why was it in a newsppaper anyway was it just to portray the case again?

Find it rather pointless needing toknow that actually

Oh well another random piece of information gathered in my head.... off I go...

God, the pitchfork mob have turned up.

There you go again Izy. You don't have any idea about my 'mindset' at all. I 'chose' to mention this because it was mentioned in an article and absolutely leapt out at me as an example of meaningless, pointless use of jargon of the kind that obscures clear thinking and is therefore dangerous. I had no idea in fact that the upper echelons of the social work system used this hideous language, but having seen it, I think it could well be symptomatic of deeper problems. As other professional people have pointed out, they don't need to use this kind of mangled English.

Upwind equally several highly educated people on this thread have no problem with the talk. At the end of the day it is up to individual perception.

I dont have a problem with it, you do. I do not feel the language was deliberately chosen to confuse or hide issues, it is afterall the type of language used in many conferences attended by professionals from a variety of fields.

Again I repeat it was but one conference title. I am sure if I could be bothered to trawl I could find conferences given by Social Services whereby plain language is used, especially if directed towards service users or a mixed audience. I am not sure we have much further to go with this argument really.

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1. The quality of child protection in Haringay (and other places).

1. The way language becomes specialised and codified in certain sectors. This happens across the board. I guarantee you would find most articles I have written to be virtually unintelligible. My articles are written for a specialised audience. Presumably Sharon Shoesmith's paper is targeted at a niche audience.

I don't think the two issues should be confused.

Well I am of the opinion that no language is 'hideous'intself, it is usually how it is construed that can set up 'hideous' conotations for the reader.

There I go again, how? I have skimmed quite a few of your posts and I think it is clear what you 'mindset' is but I am open to having my opinion changed by balanced argument and reasoned debate.

'in itself'.

Ok I will try to answer this for you Dittany, bearing in mind I am not a SW and not actively involved in the case, and I purposefuly avoided Panorama.

You are a lone SW entering a possibly volatile environment, you have a heavy caseload and are unable to spend more than a short time with each client. It is not your remit to physically examine or handle the child you are visiting at home. The scene is chaotic, possibly kids and other people in the room refusing to leave.

You are able to observe but not touch because the little boy will not sit still and the mother does not want to cooperate. You leave having observed but not physically examined the child.

I am assuming that you could set up a joint meeting with a health practioner in order to have the child further examined in a more neutral environment but you are dependant on both turning up.

This may or may not be a true reflection of the circumstances for baby P but it is the best I can do to help you picture a possible scenario.

mabanana you are the only one with the pitchfork dear...

Dittany- I have already said that on several threads although I have to say that I do back up SS but not on this one the y showed a total lack of responsability I have emailed Haringey stating this too.

It needs to be addressed whilst I agree SW are under stress and undervalued and they are brave to be doing the job they do but the thing is that woman showed how incompitent she is I mean that must be basic protocol surely?

Take your point Dittany, but I do enjoy the socio-political dynamic of his books

Izzyboy-

Baby P was strapped into his buggy with chocolate smeared over his face to cover bruises so he wasn't moving, she didn't examine him because he smiled and seemed happy

The mother was very cooperative on all accounts apparently she was very decieving...

Panorama was very interestuing last night although harrowing it was interesting how SS worked and how mistakes had been made we need to stop it from happening again.