Moderation and deleting posts

Mishap - the thread isn't gossipy overall - it was the post that brought in identifying details. And tbh I was disappointed at the lack of response to that on the thread- it seemed like no one thought it was an issue hence why I thought HQ should say something- it's clealy not enough just to tell the poster is it? Not like a personal attack deletion when everyone is clear why it happened ( says she )

Oops think I should have posted this on the other thread

I think social work has actually become more risk averse over the last ten or so years, particularly since the death of Peter Connelly, which is why I am even more surprised by this situation. What I became aware of about five years ago however was a shift in attitude by the courts towards risks from sex offenders. I believe there was case law that made it more difficult to secure care orders where children were living with a convicted sex offender; the view of the courts being that historical abuse against another child did not necessarily increase the risk of abuse against a child in the present . Most sw's I knew thought this was daft but it obviously affected practice and meant that sw's had to try to work with these situations and to build in protective measures. So it is possible that this apparently crazy plan is a plan enforced by the courts against the social workers' recommendations. It's not always social workers that get things wrong, but of course they can't discuss individual cases due to confidentiality. Just a thought.

I agree that a gentle reminder to all concerned from time to time, is very necessary.
Somewhere I think on the site, gransnet speaks about this being a community.
Yes it is, but posters do need to be aware that it is totally a public, on display community, and a gentle reminder will help.

My issue was that HQ should sometimes explain on the thread itself why a particular post was deleted to remind people of the fact that this is an open forum and the legal rights of others - eg ET, these two children. I remember a little while ago an utterly disgraceful thread about MM- HQ had to be hectored into eventually deleting the whole thread - there were shocking innuendos about the parents on it which verged on the libellous but HQ never explained really why they eventually deleted.

As former SW, I do understand the challenge of dealing with such cases day after day. I am not aware that any poster has suggested removing the team of SWs; my comment was that it is hard to do this for a continuous period of time and still do a good job. I have seen how it is possible for a team to talk itself into an idea that anyone looking in from the outside and applying common sense would regard as unwise. Being steeped in this sadness for years does impair judgement, however good the supervision might be.

The central dilemma is about trying to keep the children with their mother, whilst also keeping them safe. From what we are aware of, the decision that has been taken does not seem a wise one, if only on the grounds of physical safety. Care home managers for the elderly are not allowed to lock people in their rooms for very sound reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree with you GrannyTwice. The post was ill advised to say the least and the family could easily be identified from what was said on it.

I find much of the thread worrying. So far we want to remove the team of social workers involved from this area of work and take the children away from their mother!!

The red tops are all gossip. News is gossip and turning a blind eye is what social services have done. In a small community nothing is secret. The only people who don't know are often the social services.

phoenix has accepted the deletion of one of her posts with a good grace; and clearly understands why and that Gransnet has acted properly.

Even before that post, I was aware of where this was happening, as will many others have been.

Confidentiality is in my bones too (doctor's wife and SW) so I understand where GT is coming from; but I have no criticism of how this has been handled by Grasnet.

I started the thread, and do not regard the responses as "gossipy" - people are expressing concern, whilst also being aware that we are not in possession of all the facts.

It is sometimes a good thing when the public response to an official decision brings the professionals back down to earth and makes them realise that there are some decisions that the public regard with concern.

As I have said before, there are some areas of social work where it is possible to lose perspective over time. I suspect that this case might fall into that category.

Social workers in these cases do an unenviable job - but they also need to reflect society's attitudes in their practice; just as medicine needs to have an eye to the moral aspects of its practice and how these concur with the prevailing public morality. There is a difficult balance to be struck here - their decisions cannot be subject to the views of a "string 'em up" minority, but neither can they be totally out of synch with the prevailing mores.

Well that would be a start - seriously, stop knee jerking and think - until I reported it only one other person thought there was anything wrong with what was posted so why shouldn't HQ remind all of us about confidentiality? If more people had been concerned about the children's right to anonymity and less concerned with hearing the details, reporting wouldn't have been necessary.

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Would you like the poster to stand in the corner for the rest of the lesson day?