We have a system in place in this country which is designed ostensibly to "safeguard and promote the welfare of the child/children" The Children Act 1989 places a duty and requirement on "social workers" and all those working in local authority children and families departments to keep and bear in mind that "the welfare of the child is paramount" Most people think this is the right thing to do and is a noble idea. After all people don't like to think of children being harmed and agree, children should be protected from harm or the risk of harm.
This system is financed through taxation leading to the employment of people as "social workers" with the expectation they are and will work towards keeping children safe, as well as safeguarding, promoting and protecting their welfare. In my personal and professional experience and opinion the reality is very different. It is not to suggest all "social workers" and all the other people working in the system are guilty of harming children either directly or indirectly however the very system is itself harmful and abusive.
For a start the talk is of "cases" when the reality is of working with and talking about our fellow human beings. Positioning them as "cases" dehumanizes them surely and presents an illusion the work is "easy"
If you said to people you have ten, twenty, or thirty plus "cases" they may believe, as has often been expressed, "that's not too bad" and "that sounds really easy" This is a myth and it's one perpetrated within the system of social work itself. If you look at it as being one case equals one child, then you are talking about ten children if you have ten cases, twenty if you have twenty cases and so on. However if you consider a number of cases may have more than one child, then effectively you are able to double the number of children, you as a "social worker" are responsible for within the role of being a "corporate parent" and in "loco parentis"
What's disturbing about this is, if a family or parent had ten children then most local authorities would be wanting to conduct assessments to ascertain whether those children's needs were being fully met by their family or parent. When "social workers" have ten children this doesn't however seem to be a concern /problem for local authorities which is a striking absurdity. Where do the assumptions and expectations arise from that "social workers" are better able to parent ten children over and above anyone else - is it because of the title/words "social worker" and the understanding/perception this a professional occupation. This only contributes to and minimizes the very real demands of parenting whether as a professional or not.
For the record and based on experience most "social workers" have an allocated case load, as called, of more than ten cases. It is unusual in fact to find a "social worker" working within a local authority, children and families department to have such a "small" number of cases. A part of the myth is the idea that the "better" "social worker" is one who holds a lot of cases, when the concern really should be about the quality of the work being performed by "social workers" on those cases.
If you had the ability to be a fly on the wall of the offices of most local authority, children and families departments, the discussions amongst social workers regarding the number of cases they were holding, would be far from positive. The myth and culture is such that having too few cases is seen as somehow being incompetent and a failure within the system of "social work" On a number of occasion this issue was raised with colleagues and was met with either agreement or a blank stare. One manager stated emphatically "you will never find a position in social work" where you have, as suggested, "as few as five cases"
This is only understandable in the context of there being more cases than there are "social workers" No-one appears able or willing to make the connection however between the number of cases held by local authorities and the shortage of "social workers" in local authority, children and families departments. Other factors do come into play besides the number of cases but this is a big issue which is rarely discussed as the expectation is to "just get on with it" irrespective of any cost. In line with procedures each case has to have an allocated "social worker" thereby setting in motion a vicious cycle of tail chasing otherwise known as corporate parenting.
One of the greatest ironies in "social work" has to be that it is the government/state which determines whether your parenting is up to scratch and if found to be lacking it can and does take children into its care based on this assessed lack of a good enough standard of parenting and the likelihood of harm occurring, whether that be mentally, physically, sexually and emotionally either alone or in tandem. It then finds itself often in a situation where it performs no better than the parent or family from which the child/children have been removed with this beginning oftentimes with the sheer number of cases allocated to individual "social workers" and the recognized, high turn over of staff in local authority, children and families departments. The state/government compounding in some instances the very problems it has created itself through shortsighted policies and ideologies.
For a glimpse into this societies attitudes towards its children the following reports provide a much needed reality check. The first report details the number of children currently living in poverty in the UK Plc http://endchildpoverty.org.uk/files/childpovertymap2011.pdf Obviously the government knows about these children having been a part of this report and you would think given their professed concern about children, they would take concrete action to alleviate poverty thereby improving children's lives. Unfortunately their priority is to bail out the deeply corrupt financial system rather than the nations children and families.
The second report is about the number of children who go missing from the care system each year. In the foreword of this report it makes the point "Children are taken into care from their parents because we do not think they are safe or cared for well enough at home. But the evidence clearly shows that we fail to keep the most vulnerable children safe whilst they are in our care. In fact, children who go missing from care are being systematically failed – and placed in great danger – by the very systems and professionals who are there to protect them. This is unforgivable" http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/u32/joint_appg_inquiry_-_report...pdf
The conclusion drawn is governments themselves present the greatest risk of harm not only towards children but to the population at large from which its very existence is financed.
Saturday 22 September 2012
Thursday 13 September 2012
Bah humbug
Whilst the crowds were engaging in various act of genuflection, also known as panting, bowing, scraping, touching forelocks and flag waving, as fast as their arms would allow, in a general state of being besides themselves at the spectacle of Elizabeth swanning down the Thames, a report titled "end child poverty" caught my attention, see link here: //endchildpoverty.org.uk/files/childpovertymap2011.pdf
It makes grim reading and exposes the "loving our children" myth, believed by so many. Of course there is often an academic/intellectual debate as to whether poverty is absolute or relative with many comforting themselves with these mindless concepts, telling themselves, at least "they don't have it as bad" as children in other parts of the world. Children like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria perhaps who have and are having their lives snuffed out by the previous and current war criminals ensconced in the Houses of Parliament.
War is not only illegal it comes at a price, see link here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114708/George-Osborne-revive-100-year-bonds-used-First-World-War.html The price being paid via the collection of taxes from the general population, who then have austerity measures foisted upon them resulting in many families not being able to provide for their children who in reality are bound in perpetual debt.
Paying for war is only a part of the problem however. The public paid millions for the jubilee, this is on top of the millions paid per year by the public to Elisabeth, see link here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4nYZs4MzlZbQUJwNkRaamlnNFk/edit this link also contains the figures for Elisabeth's personal wealth, whilst the following link: http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/ provides evidence of her position as the largest landowner in the world. The following link http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/crown_estate.html contains information as to the shenanigans engaged in by Elisabeth and other family members, in order they were able, to get their grubby little mitts on the wealth of the crown estate, held since 1769 presumably in trust, and belonging to the sovereign human beings of UK Plc.
Is it any wonder there are children living in poverty given the above. Has anyone ever thought of saying to Elisabeth "we cant afford it so fuck off and fund your own lifestyle and celebrations" Is the country stuck in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome whereby because she has the image of a "dear old grandma" we smile and wave, all the time overlooking the absolute greed and avarice, she appears to have in abundance. Why if you have that much wealth do you grasp for more, is it like being a crack addict whereby the first rock is the best and one rock is never enough, leading to a cycle of chasing and attempting to re-create that initial high.
How much land and wealth do you need before you're satisfied, how many palaces can you live in at any one time, come on now really. There is something seriously wrong with a country that has children living in poverty whilst picking up the tab for individuals who have personal wealth in the range of millions and billions and trillions of pounds.
This isn't a suggestion to strip her of her wealth but we could just stop paying for her and put the other benefit scroungers on the work-fare programme. Imagine seeing Kate, Harry and Wills stacking shelves in Poundland or doing the foam pointy finger thing in Asda, warms the cockles of the heart.
That way the country could, would and should save millions and be able end child poverty overnight.
It makes grim reading and exposes the "loving our children" myth, believed by so many. Of course there is often an academic/intellectual debate as to whether poverty is absolute or relative with many comforting themselves with these mindless concepts, telling themselves, at least "they don't have it as bad" as children in other parts of the world. Children like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria perhaps who have and are having their lives snuffed out by the previous and current war criminals ensconced in the Houses of Parliament.
War is not only illegal it comes at a price, see link here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114708/George-Osborne-revive-100-year-bonds-used-First-World-War.html The price being paid via the collection of taxes from the general population, who then have austerity measures foisted upon them resulting in many families not being able to provide for their children who in reality are bound in perpetual debt.
Paying for war is only a part of the problem however. The public paid millions for the jubilee, this is on top of the millions paid per year by the public to Elisabeth, see link here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4nYZs4MzlZbQUJwNkRaamlnNFk/edit this link also contains the figures for Elisabeth's personal wealth, whilst the following link: http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/ provides evidence of her position as the largest landowner in the world. The following link http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/crown_estate.html contains information as to the shenanigans engaged in by Elisabeth and other family members, in order they were able, to get their grubby little mitts on the wealth of the crown estate, held since 1769 presumably in trust, and belonging to the sovereign human beings of UK Plc.
Is it any wonder there are children living in poverty given the above. Has anyone ever thought of saying to Elisabeth "we cant afford it so fuck off and fund your own lifestyle and celebrations" Is the country stuck in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome whereby because she has the image of a "dear old grandma" we smile and wave, all the time overlooking the absolute greed and avarice, she appears to have in abundance. Why if you have that much wealth do you grasp for more, is it like being a crack addict whereby the first rock is the best and one rock is never enough, leading to a cycle of chasing and attempting to re-create that initial high.
How much land and wealth do you need before you're satisfied, how many palaces can you live in at any one time, come on now really. There is something seriously wrong with a country that has children living in poverty whilst picking up the tab for individuals who have personal wealth in the range of millions and billions and trillions of pounds.
This isn't a suggestion to strip her of her wealth but we could just stop paying for her and put the other benefit scroungers on the work-fare programme. Imagine seeing Kate, Harry and Wills stacking shelves in Poundland or doing the foam pointy finger thing in Asda, warms the cockles of the heart.
That way the country could, would and should save millions and be able end child poverty overnight.
Sunday 9 September 2012
A nice little earner
Disclaimer: Although the words "social worker" are used I hereby state I am not working or registered as a "social worker" with any organisational or governmental body. Although having the academic qualifications needed to work within the profession of "social work" it is not a career I wish to pursue. The reasons for this are many and varied.
One of the requirements of working in the "social work" field is to be registered with a professional /governmental body. This according to the last regulatory body is necessary so that those working in the field are "assessed as trained and fit to be in the workforce or study or on an approved social work degree course" The legislation covering registration is contained in the Care Standards Act 2000. Under Section 61 of this act "social worker" is a protected title. Section 61 states " If a person who is not registered as a "social worker" in any relevant register, and is not registered as a visiting "social worker" from a relevant European State in any relevant register, with intent to deceive another - (a) takes or uses the title of "social worker" (b) takes or uses any title or description implying that he is registered in either of those ways, or in any way holds himself out as so registered, he is guilty of an offence.The regulatory body claim "that we make sure that those working in "social work" meet rigorous registration requirements and we hold them to account for their conduct by our codes of practice, this is also covered in the Care Standards Act 2000" The clue as to what is really going on can be found where it says, "meet rigorous registration requirements" see link here:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/14/contents
My query to the regulatory body was this, what happens if you are working in the position of a "social worker" but are not registered, not because of any wrong doing, and you advise people you are not registered, so they are not deceived into thinking you are. Is it still necessary to register and would you therefore be guilty of an offence if you worked as an unregistered "social worker" I have never to date received an answer to these questions from anyone connected with the regulatory body, as it was at the time. It's not clear whether they understand the question or whether they are not able perhaps to answer for fear of giving the game away.
Having the name of someone working as "social worker" on a register does not in itself mean the "social worker" is "trained and fit to be in the workforce" they may be trained, fit and in the workforce, or they could be one or all of those things. What a register does show however is they have not done anything or have been found to have done anything which shows they are unfit to be in the workforce and thus have their name removed from the register.
Whenever anything is registered it becomes the property of the Crown, this being the Crown Corporation based in the City of London. Why when working as a "social worker" do you need to be registered with the Crown Corporation, what if you don't want or wish to be registered with the Crown Corporation. Or is registration just a mechanism used essentially by the Crown Corporation to raise revenue.
The fee for inclusion on the register at one time was thirty pounds and if I remember rightly this was per year.
According to the Community Care website there are currently eighty eight thousand "social workers" on the register. Do the maths and you will see it is a phenomenal amount of money and this is just for putting the names of human beings who happen to work as "social workers" on a register and in order to maintain that register.
Human beings who work as "social workers" like everyone else pay taxes and national insurance but also pay to have their names on a piece of paper otherwise known as a register or in reality a database. How costly is it to produce a spreadsheet.
Besides isn't it the government itself which creates many of the problems via their policies which it then claims it needs "social workers" to sort out or attempt to sort out. The government are quids in reaping tax and national insurance from those working as "social workers" whilst at the same time charging them to use the title "social worker" You really couldn't make this shit up. As Del boy would say "that's a nice little earner Rodney" Governments should be known as scams are us!!
One of the requirements of working in the "social work" field is to be registered with a professional /governmental body. This according to the last regulatory body is necessary so that those working in the field are "assessed as trained and fit to be in the workforce or study or on an approved social work degree course" The legislation covering registration is contained in the Care Standards Act 2000. Under Section 61 of this act "social worker" is a protected title. Section 61 states " If a person who is not registered as a "social worker" in any relevant register, and is not registered as a visiting "social worker" from a relevant European State in any relevant register, with intent to deceive another - (a) takes or uses the title of "social worker" (b) takes or uses any title or description implying that he is registered in either of those ways, or in any way holds himself out as so registered, he is guilty of an offence.The regulatory body claim "that we make sure that those working in "social work" meet rigorous registration requirements and we hold them to account for their conduct by our codes of practice, this is also covered in the Care Standards Act 2000" The clue as to what is really going on can be found where it says, "meet rigorous registration requirements" see link here:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/14/contents
My query to the regulatory body was this, what happens if you are working in the position of a "social worker" but are not registered, not because of any wrong doing, and you advise people you are not registered, so they are not deceived into thinking you are. Is it still necessary to register and would you therefore be guilty of an offence if you worked as an unregistered "social worker" I have never to date received an answer to these questions from anyone connected with the regulatory body, as it was at the time. It's not clear whether they understand the question or whether they are not able perhaps to answer for fear of giving the game away.
Having the name of someone working as "social worker" on a register does not in itself mean the "social worker" is "trained and fit to be in the workforce" they may be trained, fit and in the workforce, or they could be one or all of those things. What a register does show however is they have not done anything or have been found to have done anything which shows they are unfit to be in the workforce and thus have their name removed from the register.
Whenever anything is registered it becomes the property of the Crown, this being the Crown Corporation based in the City of London. Why when working as a "social worker" do you need to be registered with the Crown Corporation, what if you don't want or wish to be registered with the Crown Corporation. Or is registration just a mechanism used essentially by the Crown Corporation to raise revenue.
The fee for inclusion on the register at one time was thirty pounds and if I remember rightly this was per year.
According to the Community Care website there are currently eighty eight thousand "social workers" on the register. Do the maths and you will see it is a phenomenal amount of money and this is just for putting the names of human beings who happen to work as "social workers" on a register and in order to maintain that register.
Human beings who work as "social workers" like everyone else pay taxes and national insurance but also pay to have their names on a piece of paper otherwise known as a register or in reality a database. How costly is it to produce a spreadsheet.
Besides isn't it the government itself which creates many of the problems via their policies which it then claims it needs "social workers" to sort out or attempt to sort out. The government are quids in reaping tax and national insurance from those working as "social workers" whilst at the same time charging them to use the title "social worker" You really couldn't make this shit up. As Del boy would say "that's a nice little earner Rodney" Governments should be known as scams are us!!
Social work by deception
Disillusioned and Unregistered - tales of social work
“Idealism is what precedes experience, cynicism is what follows” D Wolf
Social work by deception:
My decision to qualify as a social worker was predicated on a genuine and heartfelt liking for children and their families and also a belief I could help the people I came into contact with. My vision was of acting somewhat like a bridge between people and the challenges they experienced. Whilst recognising people faced difficulties/challenges and these were somehow, linked to the system in place, my understanding at this juncture was very limited. Still my naivety and arrogance knew no bounds and I had swallowed the lie, the difficulties people experienced were their responsibility and were as a result of their lack of ambition, motivation and education. I learnt later however this is a psychological tactic and akin to blaming the victim.
What I was unaware of at that time was the mechanism, whereby local authority social services, could intervene/interfere in the public’s private affairs especially when it came to issues of parenting. The mechanism used is commonly known as a “birth certificate” Parents register their children and in return are given a copy of an entry in a register this is the “birth certificate” It is not the original birth certificate and neither is it a certificate of live birth, which is a different kind of document altogether. The copy of the birth certificate states it cannot be used as evidence of identity.
Whilst having a copy of a birth certificate may seem harmless enough, it begs the question why are parents only given a copy and if it is not evidence of identity then what is it. Also why are parents not given a certificate of live birth?
Birth certificates are held by the Crown under copyright. Who is the Crown and why should parents register their children with the Crown. If you believe the Crown is Elisabeth II of the House of Windsor, ask yourself why does, Elisabeth II of the House of Windsor need the original birth certificates of all children born in the countries of which she is head of state.
Registration comes from the Latin word Regis. Rex/ Regina are Latin words for a King or Queen respectively also known as the monarch/crown. Therefore whatever is registered is deemed as belonging to the monarch/crown.
As the Crown holds the original birth certificate it has ownership of the goods or stock/property named on that certificate. When we think of the Crown we are led to believe this is Elisabeth II of the House of Windsor, this is only partially true. Elisabeth II of the House of Windsor is the face of the Crown Corporation presented to the public and misunderstood by them to be the ornamental bauble worn on her head. The Crown Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown) is based in the square mile of the City of London. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation)
Why would the Crown Corporation need to have original birth certificates?
Presumably it is because the birth certificate represents “livestock” and as such and in due course the “live stock” at the age of majority, will have duties and responsibilities levied against it via the creation and operation of what is “uncommonly known” as a Strawman. Duties and responsibilities are mostly always of a financial nature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko
What parents are not told is that the act of registering a child creates a contract and their children belong legally, to the Crown Corporation. This gives local authorities the mandate to intervene / interfere and remove your children if they deem your parenting is not good enough according to the rules they themselves have created.
In order for a contract to be valid however, it has to include specific criteria namely, there has to be full disclosure, equal consideration, the full consent of both parties with the contract being hand signed by both parties.
Are parents, given full disclosure as to the implications of registering their children with the Crown?
What does the Crown offer as equal consideration?
Was the informed and full consent of the parents gained?
Was the contract hand signed by both parties?
Is it possible the birth certificate is really a receipt showing the holder has a share in the common wealth of the piece of earth known as England?
The common wealth, being derived, from the natural resources and sweat equity, of sovereign, living, breathing, flesh and blood human beings inhabiting the piece of earth known as England.
However via a sleight of hand, to put it mildly, the owners of the Crown Corporation have tricked and deceived the population and have stolen and coveted the wealth for themselves claiming falsely the common wealth belongs to them and the rest of the population has to pay them to use it so that they may live. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)