Skip to main content

Dispatches - undercover Social Worker

The link is to a web page on Channel 4's website about their "undercover Social Worker" programme.

This is now available on 4 on demand.

Surrey is not one of the worse childrens services units. Nothing in the programme is particularly surprising to anyone who knows much about how the system works.

In part it is also a reflection of the nature of society.

One lesson that needs to be learnt is that there is nothing to be gained by becoming harsher and harsher with individual practitioners.

This creates an environment in which people both
a) Don't want to do the job
b) Act defensively to protect themselves rather than make good judgments.

Questions have also got to be asked about how the system responds to deal with situations such as domestic violence. Rather than acting to protect the victim the system acts instead to remove the children. The psychological evidence is that removing children causes themselves psychological harm. Hence this really should not be the first option looked at.

Comments

Jerry said…
Below are a snap shot of responses to the programme from social workers themselves, some comments leave nothing to the imagination.

The programme was just a snapshot its self, there's only so much can be disclosed within an hour of broadcasting.

It was not one of the worse, maybe Doncaster would have been a better case subject.

The programme did highlight some points I know John has been campaigning about and thats the tick box scenario, but more so to me the programme highlighted the unqualified making extreme decisions about peoples lives

Having been personally involved in this situation an unqualified person carrying out tasks without any knowledge is a dangerous situation indeed.


*

I enjoyed this programme just like life as an agency worker.When I started in social work in 1979 complete with long hair sandals and a beard we thought we could change the world .Today its just forms and more forms,wanna be senior managers whose only interest is performance indicators and a lack of facilities.

If it wasnt for my therapists Jack Daniels and Jim Bean I would have given up long ago.


*

this programme must have set back Social Work recruitment campaigns by years!

Sadly it probably has, and along with all the ones we lose because we treat them so badly (see above), that's why we have to keep importing social workers. At least the imports arrive ignorant of what their getting into, and often on agency rates that would allow several home grown social workers in their place, along with level of support they need to work properly. The programme unfortunately shows caring takes a back seat to case management/manipulation

*
My advice for all you wannabe Social Workers is avoid Children in Need teams stick to either looked after children teams or go into fostering and adoption where its akin to paradise. Alternatively join CAFCASS as a Guardian where you can pontificate about what should be done without doing it !

My dream job was as a fostering manager-very unstressed but the careers were worse than the children in terms of neediness

*

I will say this though, most of the responses I have seen and heard are nothing to do with the programme its self but that of the undercover reporter, as he was a Family support worker, many in the field are saying the reporter broke the laws himself by going to the homes of children without having a CRB check done first.

If thats their only concerns then heaven help us.


This is just an overview but this link will show further comments by Sw, some I feel hit the nail on the head.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/dispatches-undercover-social-worker-7627.aspx
lisa h said…
soial services tried to remove my kids on a vendeter they put endless lies in there paper work and put my kids on the child protecetion register then went on to do a public law out line to snatch my kids no evidence of any abuse so they labeled it as emotional as i would not be able to prove this one way or another my sons behaviour is very difficult he kicks pushes and spits this is what they have used saying it is parental we moved house within 48hours of the meeting and the new core group agree with our family that my son needs help and has a pplied for a statement of special needs. It has also been said by the new group that it is definitely not parental or 'learned behaviour'.

Ww wish to shout our story from the rooftops but wish to get in touch with the media somehow.
john said…
Email me at hemmingj@parliament.uk
Zen said…
Good laws make for a happy people, willingly governed.

Bad laws make for an unhappy people resisting in a multitude of ways, and exponentially increasing that resistance in direct relation to the poor quality of their government.

Everything that government does is said in "government speak", and so bears minimal relation to the reality outside of an office.

With no community ( common unity ) between governors and governed, the gap becomes ever wider.

The system adopts a "brick wall" attitude to everything.

The people are enraged, but are deliberately denied by the system any meaningful outlet for that rage, or resolution of problems.

Everything that concerns us are effects, and chasing effects is ultimately futile, as the system is as resistant in it's own way as the people ( for the one mirrors the other ).

To radically change this society for the better, it is neccessary to address cause, not effects, so as to reverse the exponentially-dynamic downward spiral generated by the grossly over-inflated system, and it's effects.

If one thinks of the computer program called "GB.LTD", it is quite the most appalling program ever to appear in a programmer's nightmare - it simply does not work, and has miles of redundant or substandard code. No wonder GB.LTD grinds slowly, and high cost both socially and financially.

Address Cause, and effects will rapidly decrease.

Address one effect, and tomorrow two new effects will emerge.

As someone totally trashed by serious criminal offences comitted by a local authority ( covered up by police ), and whose councillor had his house bulldozed to keep him quiet, I know firsthand what government really is.

I am ruined and excluded, but that does not stop me thinking - although my thoughts - not being in government-speak - will never be listened to.

So the insanity will continue.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…