Skip to main content

GSCC Chief Suspended

(Guardian)
The chief executive of the organisation responsible for regulating social workers was yesterday suspended over a backlog of cases, including allegations against professionals working with children.

Mike Wardle, who has led the General Social Care Council (GSCC) for the last two years, was sent home by the council's governing body while an investigation is held into management of the backlog and failure to act against 22 social workers in cases where there was "ongoing risk of harm".


It seems that the log jam of cover-up is starting to break.

Comments

Jerry said…
Out of the 20 or so suspended social workers, how many of them have their own children, more so how many of them have had their children removed as they pose "a significant risk to the public" I will bet a million quid the answer will be zero.

The GSCC is a department much like the National Complaints Department for Cafcass, complaints are lodged and depending on the seriousness of the complaint the rapidness of the "disapearence" of the complaint is known all too well.

I know of complaints to both departments that have taken upto three years to be looked at and in most instances they just write to the complainant and ask for further info. I'd scrap the both of them adhoc and start again.

With the suspension of Mike from the head of GSCC what image does this paint to the general public.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…