SIGN UP

This just about takes the biscuit

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 14:10 Tue 03rd Mar 2009 | News
26 Answers
why are social workers etc so lacking in common sense? I mean where do they get these numpties? I mean let's put a known child abuser with a family with young children. Oh and we'd better not tell them about the history, might put them off!
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Foste r-Family-Horror-Vale-of-Glamorgan-Council-Admi ts-Errors-After-Disturbed-Teen-Attacked-Kids/A rticle/200903115232944?lpos=UK_News_First_Home _Article_Teaser_Region_9&lid=ARTICLE_15232944_ Foster_Family_Horror%3A_Vale_of_Glamorgan_Coun cil_Admits_Errors_After_Disturbed_Teen_Attacke d_Kids
Jesus on bicycle! what were they thinking?

Answers

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And yet they check out the Foster Family to make sure THEYRE suitable??? Its a laughing stock
If a TV company tried to make a programme with this scenario, Social Workers would declare it an unrealistic portrayal of their profession. It beggars belief!
I'm sure they'll say that it's regrettable and that there are lessons to be learnt and of course the family will be able to access counsellors BUT the very considerable harm has been done, the parents will be having nightmares and God only knows what the children are going through. Is our society going into melt down?
For some reason working for social services seems to appeal to a certain type of person - they seem to be more interested in quotas and unfair discrimination, such as not allowing people who are a bit lardy or enjoy the occassional fag, to not allow to foster or adopt, even though they may very well be able to provide a stable and loving environment which, let's face it, is what children need.

Consider the recent case in Scotland - the loving grandparents weren't allowed to adopt, so instead they vetted four couples, all of whom fitted the criteria. Three of the four couples were in 'traditional' male/female relationships and the fourth were gay.

The gay couple were chosen. Now, I don't doubt the gay couple would provide a loving environment for the children, but why were they chosen over any of the male/female couples?

I believe, I don't have any evidence to back this belief up, but I believe common sense dictates that a male/female couple is a better environment to bring up children than a male/male environment.

The children were placed with the gay couple to either fill a quota, or to show how 'right-on' and 'forward thinking' social services are or a mixture of the two.

I also believe that what was in the best interests of the children were way down their list of priorities.

The situation in the link shows breathtaking incompetence on an outrageous scale, and the people involved should be sacked and never allowed to work in an even remotely similar role.

Aside from the damage this mentaler has done to the children, the parents will, for the rest of their naturals, be blaming themselves - I know I would.

But of course, these incompetent lickspittles are the type of people who would feel his nuttery is as a result of societies failings or some other such psychobabble bullsh1t.
I was listening to Roger Phillips in the car earlier and there was a woman on saying that what social workers had done was criminal, Phillips had a field day against her saying that it was'nt criminal as that would be premeditated and that it was a mistake etc.
The word she was looking for was NEGLIGENT, which it clearly was and further more it was negligence bordering on criminal negligence.
A shocking story.
Well the question is who would want to be a social worker.

Have you ever made a mistake at work? Maybe if you work in a supermarket you have put cauliflower through as cabbage.

Maybe if you are a secretary you copied a name or address down incorrectly.

How about if you are a restauranteur and made some food up wrong?

Maybe if you drive a car, you have lost concentration slightly and veered over your lane?

The trouble is that if you make a mistake when you are a social worker (or doctor or similar) you are likely to put someone in danger.

This is not a deliberate action but rather one that is a mistake. Every one in their jobs, home life etc make mistakes - unfortunately, the more responsibility you have, the bigger the mistake will be.

We don't know the details of what exactly happened yet - how about waiting to know what happened before you call for mass sackings of everybody involved.
The trouble is Oneeyedvic, no one person would have been expected to make this decision. There would have been a case conference attended by people of varying experience and it is fair to expect that between them they would prevent this type of error occuring.
The trouble is, if one person missed out a crucial detail (like a criminal report) or maybe ticked a box to say it had been done and followed up, (like every other bureaucratic office) every one else would have assumed that it had been done.

Most successful businesses / organisations have systems which are followed. If some of the people involved followed the system (and someone junior c0cked up), should they be sacked?

The system needs to be looked at (and the NSPCC will be doing that) and individuals need to be looked at. If someone has acted incorrectly then that needs to be looked at - maybe disciplined, maybe sacked.

The trouble is that in this 'where there's a blame there's a claim culture' we love to scream blue murder and ask for someone's head to be served on a platter.

Something obviously went drastically wrong here - to me it is more important to find out what went wrong and how we can prevent it from happening again that to find out who was responsible and make sure that they are sacked.
As I understand it the child had a history of sexual assault, how can the placing of this individual not be percieved as anything other than negligent?
flip_flop


Could it be because gay men are far less likely to rape their kids, unlike the dozens of straight men who seem to do it month in, month out.

...prior to killing them.

The facts unfortunately speak for themselves.

Children are safer with the gays.
Well this one was'nt.
I think it's a rather churlish piece of reasoning to suggest that gay people are less likely to molest children than others.
I'm not entirely sure which way you wish to lead the discussion with this point, the questioner's contention is that social workers are inept, and is using this case to prove his point.
Many social workers do their job well and we don't hear of their successes, I feel that his contention centres on the culture that pervades within such circles, a social worker caste almost, to which he objects.
Something to which I'm minded to concur.
That is an uttely fatuous statement sp, and I think you know it is.
I believe, I don't have any evidence to back this belief up, but I believe common sense dictates that a male/female couple is a better environment to bring up children than a male/male environment.</ii>

Wow. I guess that must be the basis social services should operate on then... I mean, let's not let evidence get in the way of your gut feeling and all.
Are you suggesting that common sense is not valid?

I don't have any evidence, but then I don't think I need any where the answer is founded in common sense.

Of course a child is better served in a 'traditional' family set-up - this is obvious.

But as you've stated "...let's not let evidence get in the way of [my] gut feeling..." can you provide the evidence of which you speak please?

If you can provide the evidence, and I assume you can as you referred to it, I will more than happily be corrected.
Question Author
Ok let's not turn this into a gay/adoption row. Thanks so far for you contributions.

Vic, yes this is a job were a c0ckup is more serious but surely in this case it's like putting beef in with the organic veg, even the dimest supermarket worker would see that it don't fit!, this ain't collies and cabbages!
Social worker threads do seem to attract a special kind of visciousness. Maybe it's because they're seen as do-gooders or busybodies.

But whatever we think of the individuals who do the job, I'm sure we'd all agree that social work itself is necessary to protect vulnerable families.

So then we need to think where it all leads. By castigating them so publicly for being incompetent and/or negligent, what are we doing? Dissuading people from joining the profession. After all, who'd want to put up with that sort of sh*t. What does that mean? It means the calibre of applicants drops. Which means more mistakes will be made, which means there's even less adequate protection for children.

Well done. By trying to outdo the rest of the angry mob, you're participating in a viscious circle of brainlessness, that ultimately does no one any good - least of all the children you all claim to care so much about. Full marks.
flip_flop

My statement is based on the evidence to hand. There hasn't been a single case of child abuse by a gay foster parent or adoptive parent this decade.

Compare that to the number of kids murdered by straight blokes who move in with women who already have kids.

Logic dictates that straight men are more of a danger to kids than gay men.

That's what you call REAL common sense.
flip_flop - I'm pulling your leg. Of course straight men (in general) are loving, caring parents. But until there is any evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that a straight couple can bring up kids better than a gay couple.
Question Author
Well Quinny, if they'd stop recruiting out of the pages of the Guardian hired some good solid peoiple with an ounce of common, most of the problems would be solved. Instead they hire ideological, trendy idiots who are more interested in how many kids they give to Gay couples than stopping babies getting tortured to death and giving paedophiles to Foster families with young kids.
I should have known you were pulling my leg sp, as you don't seem the type to fall for the old post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that so many on this site seem to.

Just to clarify, in an ideal world, I believe (without wishing to upset Kromo) children are better served in a traditional family set up.

I don't doubt gay couples are more than capable of providing a loving environment, as I alluded to in my long-winded post yesterday, but I found the decision in the Scottish case somewhat puzzling.

What singled out the gay couple as being more suitable than the three heterosexual couples?

Alas, I believe the social services felt they were more suitable simply because they were gay as it ticked a diversity box for them.

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

This just about takes the biscuit

Answer Question >>