Rotherham: Truth and Politics ? The Not So Big Society

The only time I read my local paper is at the?Indian?takeaway. Whilst waiting for my korahi chicken yesterday evening, I disinterestedly flicked?through the familiar mix of parking problems, noisy neighbours and oversubscribed schools. I nearly skipped the article buried on page 11 about a man who died after an error from his GP, because I was pondering whether to order a popadom. Then I stopped and read it: it was my GP.

Our doctor is kind, caring and hard-working. He treats people as individuals and always makes time for them. On this occasion, the surgery computer system did not indicate that the prescriptions for the drugs his elderly patient required for a heart condition had stopped after the man was released from hospital. Several months on, he relapsed and sadly died. The coroner praised the doctor for his honesty. I can?t recall the actual verdict but the death could have been prevented.

Today?s Daily Telegraph didn?t lead with an avoidable death or for that matter any death. The case of foster carers who allegedly had children in their care removed from them because they were UKIP members has run on all media. It?s been top of 5Live news all day, for example. You would expect Nigel Farage to have an opinion but Michael Gove has swiftly weighed in too. As I write, Milliband is being quoted. Cue outrage at social work.

If UKIP membership is the only reason why these children were moved, I don?t agree with it. They should have stayed where they were. The council said on the news this morning that the children were going to move on anyway. This may be the case. However, the original Telegraph report says the boy was moved the?following?day and his two sisters soon after. If this is accurate, it does not sound like a planned move to me.

I qualify my remarks with ?if accurate? for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the report does not appear to have any corroboration from other sources. They may exist but it?s based heavily on the carers? account. I thought journalists cross-checked, especially on a headline story, but this is different.

Secondly, it doesn?t chime with my?experiences?over the years. Judgments?about the?capabilities of??carers are never made on the basis of a single piece of information, unless of course it relates to a child protection matter or allegation, in which case prompt action must be taken to safeguard the child.

In this case, you would like to think that other evidence would have been considered, such as the history of the carers over their fostering career, the progress of the children in placement, any evidence that the actual behaviour of the carers had negatively impacted on the children (as ?distinct from their membership of a political party) and the wishes and feelings of the children. Bear in mind that the Fostering Standards prohibit changes in children?s careplans without consultation unless there is a real and immediate need.?If the local authority has other information, they could not possibly break confidentiality and share it?publicly,?which offers no protection to the storm of media outrage.

Some of the criticism is misinformed. Farage was calling for the immediate reinstatement of the carers but they are still?approved?carers, it?s just this placement that has ended. Also, he might think about considering the children?s needs first, which is the law after all.

However, what is most significant is why this is a story at all. My doctor will carry on practising, as he should. The competence of the medical profession has not been called into question because a man died. Yet in the case of the Rotherham foster carers, the ability of the entire social work profession has immediately become the issue. This is all the corroboration the Telegraph needed. We know social workers do this sort of thing, don?t we. Leaving aside the fact that as I have already suggested, any judgement is based on incomplete evidence, this is not about the actions of individual social workers or even the authority itself, it?s about how lousy our profession?supposedly?is in making these?judgement.

The?implication?clearly is that social workers make snap judgments based on dogma and preconceived ideas. More than this, we are driven by political ideology. In much of the coverage, this deeply flawed and?prejudiced?perspective has not been significantly questioned. This must be the case ? what other reason could there be? It shows how little the public still understand about what we do.

This may have been a carefully considered decision or something that was rushed. It could have been a?wrong?decision. If so, hold up our hands, but it does not prove one single thing about how social work as a whole assesses the needs of children.

You would think the minister, our minister, might at the very least inject a sense of perspective. Not so. ?The wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons,? he said. I humbly suggest he cannot know that for certain. But there are bigger issues at play here and it suits him to use the?profession?for which he is?responsible for other reasons.

Rotherham is holding a by-election. It?s Labour-held, therefore this decision is the responsibility of the Labour authority even though it would have been made by social workers, i.e. officials not politicians. The assumption that this is a political issue has not been called into question. No coincidence.

Also, the consultation period for government proposals to diminish the?significance?of culture and origin in decisions about adoption placements is coming to an end. This has been well-trailed over the past year ? see some of my previous articles ? as a way of removing what the government?characterise?as impediments to swifter adoption. It?s an important proposal that has?considerable?opposition as well as its proponents. Whichever position you take, it?s disturbing that a matter about the health and well-being of three little children and public confidence in social work becomes a chance for?political?points-scoring. ?We might look back at this episode in future and ask if anyone truly cares.

Source: http://notsobigsociety.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/rotherham-truth-and-politics/

barbara walters tupelo honey limp bizkit stations of the cross nike foamposite galaxy bill maher seabiscuit