graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

Nightowl, thanks for the update on Sharon Shoesmith, and setting out the background to her appointment so clearly. A mature social work student told me recently, that on her OU course, the assembled trainee social workers were told by a tutor to avoid working in child protection. Her background was as a social work assistant on a children and families team. She'd done 10 years in that job, and been able to train as her own family were less dependent. She was an excellent worker and was the only person on her course who planned to go into working with children and families. The vitriol with which social workers are attacked by some in the media, and on discussion boards is disproportionate (in my view). There is always room to improve practice but the social climate along with the cost of training is not providing much incentive to people to chose social work as a career. In the 80's, social work teams had a great mix of bright young graduates, alongside people from all walks of life who had chosen to train as mature students. One team I was on included an ex priest, ex hair dresser, former merchant seaman, a woman who'd been the team administrator and gone off and trained. None of those people would be able to afford to train now, so great life experience missing. The social work degree course is not helping, how many of us would have the maturity and life experience to work effectively with very challenging people/children at high risk at the age of 21. This thread could do with a title all of its own!

Notso so much more succinct than my post

Spot on nightowl. The dominancy of education within Children's Services did no favours for the prioritising of child protection.

Sel I am sure that if there were threads criticising dentists, hairdressers, travel agents and Reiki therapists, any GNetter in those occupations would feel eligible to defend her/his profession. The fact that teachers and social workers may feel it is necessary to stand up for themselves is because they seem to come in for a lot of over-generalised criticism. Nobody is sanctifying anybody, but I stand by what I said about an overarching attitude of blanket disregard for qualification, training and experience. Yes, people get things wrong- as happens in most walks of life. Similarly more often, people get things right and see that as part of their job, not grounds for exceptional praise or (God help us) bonuses!

Yes petallus Sharon Shoesmith won her case for unfair dismissal with the court of appeal stating that she had been unfairly scapegoated and that her sacking by Ed Balls was unlawful. I believe she is still fighting through the courts to be re-employed by Haringey (in a different post) as she is now unemployable.

It is my understanding that her background is education rather than social work. Perhaps others with more knowledge can correct me if I am wrong. One of the mistakes (I think) of the Laming report into the death of Victoria Climbie was to recommend a splitting of social services departments into adults and children's, with children coming under the remit of education and adults under health. This led to social services for children being subsumed into large Children's Services departments where education - a much larger service - was dominant. It meant that many heads of those departments had no background in social care and they found themselves (in my view) out of their depth. In my own authority at the time this was glaringly obvious with decisions from the top that made no sense. This was not the fault of the Directors like Sharon Shoesmith, who may have been very good at their usual jobs, but the fault of a misguided policy which placed them in charge of huge departments where they became responsible for the most vulnerable children without any prior experience of this.

Here endeth the sermon!

I do see what you are saying when and nightowl

It must be nerve-wracking at times having to make judgements about children's welfare.

I remember thinking Sharon Shoesmith was being unfairly treated, even demonized.

Wasn't she exonerated recently?

petallus it may not be healthy but aspiring social workers need to be fully aware of the difficulty of the decisions they will be called upon to make and the fact that they will be criticised - by their employers and by the public if they get it wrong, which they inevitably will at times. Fortunately not every mistake is catastrophic but by the nature of the job these are often life or death decisions and that is a heavy weight to carry. Like Notso I have met many fed up, despairing, stressed and anxious social workers, but never any that are self-pitying or feel they are martyrs. There is a lot of camaraderie and black humour which helps us to get through day to day, but we cannot pretend to young social workers that the job will be easy, or that they will be popular with their clients or the general public. I think we are on a similar level to the bankers in the public view, but nowhere near as well rewarded.

I saw it as a humorous way to throw into relief the strong feelings that the public will have about social work, as a way of opening up a debate.

Social work training has to include conflict and tension, and explore different ways of avoiding, managing, and resolving all the obstacles that will be faced. It's all very well for a social worker to have all the information that evidences that a child might be at risk, but they and their team also have to be ready for the fallout if their actions are perceived to be wrong. Usually, they are not allowed to breach confidentality and disclose the very information that might lead protesters to say, 'oh, fair enough, now you've explained, we understand.'

Notso I was not suggesting you personally were being self-pitying.

But I did think the image being used in the cartoon to represent criticism was amazingly over the top, a man being strung up by the neck surrounded by an angry crowd shaking their fists and shouting abuse?

What was the man if he wasn't a martyr? Is that how social workers are supposed to feel if they make mistakes and are criticised.

Also, the sugggestion in the cartoon IS that whatever social workers do they can't win.

Not a healthy attitude to foster in young social workers in my opinion.

Check out the threads discuossing whistle-blowing, Sel. Public sector whistle blowing policies have developed for the purpose of outing dangerous, inept and fraudulent practice, so people like social and health workers can change the circumstances that are preventing the public from getting the service they deserve.

Dismssed Sel? I have read plenty of replies explainng, defending, agreeing, givng a different perspective and an insider's view, but none dismissing.

There has been plenty of questioning of teaching and of social work on gransnet. There has been plenty of criticism too, by grans who later became teachers themselves even. But of course people will defend themselves and their profession from sniping. Your remarks above over generalise, sel.

Every job is as worthy as the next.......really?

Obviously everyone makes mistakes, some get wider publicity than others.

Are some professions immune from criticism? It seems on Gransnet if one dares to question teachers or social workers and their expertise and infallibility on matters that we, as mere mothers/grandmothers/citizens have an opinion, we are dismissed. 'Thinking' we're experts.

I have the upmost regard for people who have chosen to do jobs I couldn't do but sanctification isn't required for those who made other career choices. One only has to bring Sharon Shoesmith to mind to realise that.

There are good and bad in every walk of life and every job is as worthy as the next. Not every banker is evil and not everyone in business is an evil capitalist.

When social workers make mistakes they make the headlines [no mention of all the times they get it right]. But, when bankers make mistakes they get bonuses.

Of course you're not a robot Galen! My point is that human beings can never be 100% right, 100% of the time ( although some come pretty close )

Jingle, that image was absolutely NOT portayed as 'always look out for yourself. Child second' .

Your third point about 'you can't win' resonates though....which is why the last para of when's post yesterday at 08.42.17, reminded me of that cartoon image.

Well said Notso

I thought the image put forward at your first lecture was diabolical. It seemed to say "always look out for yourself. Child second. And you can't win anyway"

No Not so. Not robots. But hopefully highly and well educated and qualified. And carefully chosen.

I AM NOT A ROBOT am I?

The image I described had nothing to do with self-pity petallus. It was presented as a description of the extent to which the most well thought through and considered decisions, are likely to be met by opposition.

In all my years of social work, I encountered plenty of fed-up, harrassed & despairing colleagues. I never met one who was self-pitying.

I completely agree with your comment that some social workers, as with other professions, are just not very good. I wasn't very good 100% of the time.

On a car assembly line, most of the tasks are now completed by computerised machines. Production increases and mistakes are virtually eliminated.

Maybe the doctors, nurses, policemen, social workers, probation officers et al of the future will be computerised robots. Then everyone will be consistently good at their jobs

You are graciously forgiven, Gracesmum!

Of course you did Greatnan - I really must stop improving on quotations! Sorry!

Making judgements about a whole profession based on a small minority of incompetent (or overworked) people is very unfair. My daughter was almost killed by a surgeon who had butchered another dozen women but I don't conclude that all surgeons are negligent. (Although I do question the ethos that stopped any of his colleagues blowing the whistle.)