'snatched' by social workers

[DuelingFanjo]

oh ffs

I know it's the Daily Mail but Social workers don't snatch children!

She looks good for 48 mind!

I think that is a fair post NN. The only think I would say is that I would not dream of criticizing the way you personally go about your job. But saying there are flaws in the cp system and expressing concern about them is not the same as criticizing you personally. I could express concerns about the educational system, for example that classes are too big, children start too early in this country, etc. That is not the same as criticizing an individual teacher's lesson plan. I could express concerns about the NHS too, under-funding, under-staffing, staff over worked and underpaid, poor hygiene in some hospitals, etc. If people express concern about the secrecy of the family courts and the lack of accountability in the cp system it is the same thing. It is not a personal attack on you or any other SW.

NanaNina, following your logic, though, parents would never have the right to have an opinion on how their children are taught because they aren't teachers, or patients an opinion on whether their care was good enough because they aren't doctors. Or the case of my profession, whether ads are entertaining, informative and likely to make you buy a product just because they aren't in the profession. Which not only is blatantly rubbish, but would make for a very very dull world!

nananina "we now know he is driven by what happened to him personally"

You don't know this. I have made it clear that I am driven by the mass of injustice that goes on.

None of my children have ever been in care or even on a child protection register.

However, I am concerned about those children that are in care whether that be rightly or wrongly and how they and their families are maltreated by the system. Not that this always happens, but it does at times.

NanaNina - could you please not make personal comments? Discuss the issue(s) by all means, but making the argument personal is rude, putting it very diplomatically.

Thanks.

I don't understand why it is not valid for people to talk about their individual experiences. Why is it not on? As it is people's individual experiences that shape their perception of a service.

For example I had a horrible midwife when I was giving birth. That particular midwife was horrible. I don't see why I can't say that.

As there was a poster on here who had a SW tell her that she would remove her children. Why only speak in general terms? Why are people's actual experiences not valid? As if you ignore people's individual experiences, then of course you can say that their perception of the service is unfair. Because you are ignoring the reason that they have come to that conclusion in the first place.

It is like saying that people should never complain of bad customer service, as they cannot possibly understand the wider picture of the way the organisation works. It's nonsense. In a role where you are client facing, the way you are perceived by clients is vital.

SS has a terrible image problem and I have seen nothing to make me feel any other way. Because so many individuals have had bad experiences with individual social workers.

NanaNina, as I think I made clear in my posts, my reasons for bringing up the old cases (Shieldfield is another one, where SS were certainly at the root of the trouble) was not to pretend that something that happened 20 years go should be used to infer what would happen today- but to point out that some of the professionals involved in these cases have been able to go on practising and have never expressed any regret, in fact in some cases have specifically gone out of their way to say that they are unrepentant. That imo is relevant to the debate about today's society.

Accountability clearly depends on what happens to people who are caught behaving unprofessionally- and on what happens to whistleblowers. These are the things on which a profession is, and should be, judged. And when SWs show willing to descend to personal attacks on someone who criticises them on an online forum, then that does make you wonder how they would react in RL. It's the unprofessional tone of these posts that worry me, I can't imagine reacting like that towards anyone who criticised my own work publicly (am a researching academic so this happens rather a lot).

I really don't like this stuff digging around in someone's personal life.

If you don't like what someone says, challenge them on what they are saying. Don't start rummaging around in their "real" lives.

I have spent 10 mins having a quick read as to what happened to JH and his childs mother, I'm sorry I don't see what the big shocking story is ???
He felt badly treated and wants to prevent others going through the same bullshit, how is that so terrible ?

not a big story and well known on MN. No shocking revelation there.

Sonottelling - there is nothing wrong in people recounting their individual experiences. for me the important thing is what views/actions they take because of those experiences. If they are able to accept that a mistake by a Dr/teacher/nurse/lawyer whoever does NOT mean that the entire system is corrupt, and don't go on to mount campaigns to distort the reality of what happens, making wild allegations that cannot be proven and mislead parents at the centre of care proceedings as JH does, then so be it.

Do you for instance believe that all midwives are insensitive, inhuman women who should not be anywhere near a pregnant woman because of your experience.

A GP was too late in diagnosing my sister's lung cancer and she later died (though we don't know what difference an earlier diagnosis would have made) but sad as we were, we did not then go on to mount a campaign trying to destroy the credability of all GPs.

As far as JH and his personal expereinces are concerned in relation to child protection, we don't know the facts. We only have his account and the vaididity of that I would say is highly questionable.

As for the "terrible image" of social services, I think eventually there will be a crisis (which is already apparentin the inner cities)because social workers are leaving the profression in significant numbers and new entrants are slowing down with rapidity. And who can blame them when they are pilloried by people who don't understand the difficulties and stresses involved in child protection. Furthermore it's no good (as I have discovered) trying to explain how the system really works, itjust falls on stoney ground. Many SSDs are struggling to cope with 30 -40% vacancy rates. I hate to say it but in a way I woul dbe glad to see the system collapse and see what governments are going to do then. Ed Balls is at last realising that sws need support and to stop being pilloried by the tabloids but I fear it is too little toolate.

I'm not being funny NN but it seems an odd cause to dedicate yourself to unless you felt seriously hard done by.
As the man is lready a millionaire and an MP and has a wife and a bit on the side it's not like he needs to fill the hours in his day is it ?

No one has said all SWs are terrible. Everyone has said the vast majority of SWs do a very good job in very difficult circs. Including JH.

Nananina: the point you are repeatedly missing is that while there is a set of procedures that have to be followed before children are removed from their parents' care, a percentage of social workers are LYING to people about this in order to bully people into compliance. ANd it is very, very worrying that 'non-compliance with professionals' can be cited as a reason for starting removal proceedings when professionals are human and fallible and sometimes wrong. People should have the right to disagree with professionals and seek second opinions in every area of their personal lives.

I wasn't talking about JH's experiences, I was talking about other people on the thread who have reconted bad experiences, but these have not been addressed further than either "that can't have happened" or "that shouldn't have happened" and no more has been said. But it is precisely these experiences which lead to people believing the worst of the profession as a whole. Until people accept the sometimes things go wrong and that sometimes SW do deliberately intimidate people and mislead them then we will never get anywhere.

As it is, with the midwives, I am generally a bit suspicious of them now, yes, whereas before I trusted them blindly.

What do you mean SGM? That someone suggested NN was a troll? I don't think that was an attempt to stifle debate. There was no debate. There was repeated 'Most SWs do a very good job but there are problems' and then there were some very odd responses and I think people were just really wondering what was going on. Debate would be good, but the consensus from NN is that those outside the system have nothing to contribute to the debate.

I don't understand why a personal experience of something somehow makes your interest in this issue suspect or wrong.

Bob Geldof became involved in the campaign to reform the family courts because he felt he'd been hard done by. His personal experience was the catalyst for becoming involved, but it wasn't the major reason he remained involved. Diana Lamplugh became involved in the campaign to educate people about personal safety because of the horrendous experience of losing her daughter but she doesn't remain involved only because of her personal experience. It may be that JH's involvement with this campaign may initially have been prompted by his own experience, but it is unreasonable to imagine that that is the only reason he reamins involved. He is an MP, whatever we think of them on the whole believe it or not, most of them are driven by a belief in public service and a wish to influence public life for the better. I think it's utterly unreasonable to denigrate his campaigning on this issue as merely the mad rantings of an obsessive loon who can't get over something. It just looks like a constant attempt to discredit your opponent instead of engaging with his arguments.

I think that was a reaction to NN's rallying call to 'do something' about JH, not an attempt to stifle debate.

I for one would like to be able to have a debate about such issues without the thread being hijacked by those with an axe to grind.....

I am John's "bit on the side" I am also a regular poster on mumsnet but usually avoid this type of thread. However what has been posted here has distressed me as really you Nananina have shown not one ounce of compassion as to how the experiences your co-professionals subjected me to may have affected me.

We've been together over 10 years and we have a beautiful daughter together. Many of you will disapprove of my relationship with John and that is fine and I accept that. As always with these things the whole background is far more complex and intricate than protrayed in the press (who needless to say are inaccurate on many things)

I can assure you that NOBODY has ever treated me worse than the social workers involved in the case. They made assumptions, ignored medical advice about how they should treat me (when I was heavily pregnant) and twisted my words and actions. They delibrately set situations up to terrify me, deliberately withheld information until the last minute and gave me very little opportunity to challange their inacccuaracies.

I am not prepared to go into the full details here because it still hurts me and shakes me to talk about it. However, were it not for the support, love and belief that John gave me then I would be in a very different place now because those people seemed determined to ruin my life even going so far as to give confidential details to journalists that were printed in the national press when our daugther was only days old.

I love John. I love our daughter and every morning when she wakes, and every second I spend with her until I put her to bed at night and every kiss i give her as she sleeps is far more precious to me because of my past.

John campaigns because he believes and has experienced the wrong in the system. He's been contacted by hundreds of people who have had far worse experiences than we ever did. He cares and he puts immense effort into what he does. He will not rest until he has done everything in his power to make changes and improve things for families. He has said things that will upset people, he has taken insults and endured numerous nasty articles in the specialist press and even unpleasant comments for judges but not for one minute has he given up and nor will he.

He is not driven by vendetta he is driven by the terrible realisation that what happened to us was MILD in comparison by what really goes on in the system.

I may ask for this post to be deleted. We'll see.

Referring to you as 'a bit on the side' is offensive, and assume you chose the name to make a point which you have done very eloquently.

part of the problem, in my opinion, is that a lot of people do believe that there's 'no smoke without fire...' and that professionals, especially those who wield trust, will use it benevolently. Most will, but once you get into the system, it's treading treacle.

There is also the issue that many people will not experience what you head to go through, so there will be genuine non comprehension that something so basic, could be so misunderstood, and that there must be something to explain.

So sorry you are still traumatized by it all.

The vast majority of people are kind and compassionate no matter what their profession.