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 mamadiva as I say this was merely a scenario to try to give Dittany a flavour of the work.

I really didnt want to put myself through all the details last night, 'cowardice,' I know.

Really I have no answers because I was not there. It is terribly sad and I am sure the SW involved is equally appalled by her own fallibility.

From the initial statements it seems that "best practice" was followed - to me that means the social worker who observed a chocolate-coated baby must have followed the correct protocols and ticked all the necessary boxes.

The really disturbing point is that her senior management at Haringey seemed to think that it was sufficient. That and the talk title which prompted this thread indicate that they are out of touch with the actual purpose of their role - it is not to show that they are measuring impacts, following government guidelines or breaking down silos, but rather that they are actually protecting children.

I know Izyboy was just saying.

Apparently she is 'on the brink of suicide' and the only thing keeping her going is herkids. am glad someone feels guilty.

Not sayig she should go kill herself or nothing but atleast someone is taking some responsibility! Should go get some counsselling me thinks...

Well sure, Dittany, it possibly does hamper them, I think a SW came on this thread a while back and said the same thing re not being able to 'physically examine' children. If you want to check this out with Social Services yourself you will have a definite answer and you can let us know.

All professionals dealing with children have to be very careful how they are seen to handle them. Social Workers are not health professionals and physical examination procedures may well just not be their remit. That may seem crap to you but ...

I suggest Dittany that if you really want to know what is part of the training phone up the college nearest to you that qualifies Social Workers and ask for a prospectus or even ask a few questions of the course practitioners. Now I really have to go to look after my own kids

Lord Dittany do you not read any of my posts? I worked alongside SWs for many years as part of a voluntary sector job. I answered your initial question willingly- why is it so difficult for you to understand that I can observe and have empathy with colleagues?

Mama hope that didn't come across as defensive, I am typing quickly as I know my kids need me.

Well sure Dittany which is why I clearly stated that it is a 'scenario' and a 'flavour' we are all pretty much making assumptions aren't we. You wanted someone to try and answer so I did try.

No no Izyboy, LOL I know what its like mines is asleep lucky me !!!

Go and look after your kids am sure will manage on later this being my social life and all

I said it was a 'terrible situation' it is a job I couldn't do because I care about kids so much I would find the job emotionally traumatic. This was my point - if you missed it - well I hope it is now clear. What is the problem with this or is there only one prescriptive response you want to your posts?

Why were the family on SS books to start with? Was it they were dirty and flagged up or were the involved after injuries? Was is just for the baby or the whole family?

If the former, then I can understand why he wasn't looked at more closely. Were most of his injuries inflicted very close to his death? Mine were covered in bruises and I admit I was scared to go to the doctor half the time with my boy as he was forever hurting himself (dyspraxic)

I do believe that many of us wouldn't be happy with a social worker undressing our kids and examining them and I can see why they take the softer approach, especially after some high profile, heavy handed approach like Fran Lyon.

The whole system needs changing but we need to help them to

Thanks for explaining that Dittany.

I remember the day this story broke that the police statement contrasted so completely with the Haringey SS statement. The police acknowledged that they had made errors (though not ones significant to the outcome) and that the tragedy should have been avoided.

But Shoesmith, the bureaucrat, blathered in management-speak about the findings of the "independent review" which had involved no independent access to documentation and the content of which she had agreed to prior to publication. She even claimed that she was "satisfied that the action that should have been taken was taken." How can lessons really be learned and any necessary change made to the system at Haringey when such a pompous and callous individual is in charge? The tragedy could have and should have been avoided. Without acknowledging that, you can't take measures to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

There will always be some tragic deaths or grievious injuries that could not easily have been predicted, or where the risk seemed low enough to leave a child in a dangerous situation - not this case though.

I wonder if a lot of the senior management in SS have ever had to face up to the realities of working on the front line?

There were repeated attempts to stifle discussion on this on the grounds that public criticism of the SS would put competent people off joining them - it never seemed to occur to the people making this argument that SS could respond by addressing the issues raised. I suspect that the publicity around the Climbie case was offputting - not so much because SS messed up but because they chose to make a junior social worker a scapegoat while promoting the senior individuals who allowed the situation to develop.

My understanding is that generally most senior management in SS have been social workers at some point and have worked their way up the 'ranks'.

I cannot comment on Shoesmith and her career portfolio. I am assuming that it was considered her skills were deemed appropriate and transferrable for her current post. She may have a Social Work qualification. There may have been very few applicants for the job and she turned out to be the best - who knows!

Of course the scapegoating of the SW in the Climbe case will have made some people cautious about entering the profession. Equally the 'naming and shaming' of the Social Worker in this case will have had the same effect.

Really constructive and informed 'critisism' of SS systems and how they can be improved is more likely to give prospective SWs hope that they are entering a valued profession. Especially if this is backed up with financial support.

Whether or not Shoesmith uses 'management speak' in the occasional conference is unlikely to make much difference to the outcome of an investigation into Haringey and child protection in general. And imo neither should it, there are more important issues at stake.

Dittany there is no need to get immediately defensive (one of your not so charming habits) I am trying to have a reasonable debate. The scapegoating of the SW in the baby P case was not on this thread it has been in certain newspapers.

I have provided plenty of constructive critisism throughout this thread whether or not you have chosen to see it as such is really up to you.

When I say 'comment' on Shoesmith's qualifications I mean jump to concrete conclusions based on snippets of info in the media.

Why is it that whenever anyone gives an alternative view you just cannot cope with it Dittany?
You are very selective about what you choose to pick up on and detest it when anyone has the audacity to disagree with you. How come you are so much more well informed?

You have generalised about social workers to a ridiculous degree in this thread.

Everyones entitled to your opinions I guess!