First the government rewarded her by including her in the social work task force (which probably happens to be the greatest achievement of her life considering that she is a woman who in her own words "knows nothing about social work" and has neither any expertise/specific competencies nor any genuine wisdom) for spearheading a witch hunt that assaulted the entire social work profession with the cheapest possible tabloid generalisation.
And now GSCC (the regulatory body for social work) rewards her by inviting her as a speaker in GSCC's annual conference. The irony of it is the conference is entitled "Social work: a profession to be proud of".
This is the culmination of a Greek commedy of blunders and the epitome of our paradoxical and schizophrenic culture.
I was wondering what you think of this.
Do you think it was right for government to appoint this woman to social work taskforce when many many qualified and well experienced social workers have not had the same chance? Was this not another slap in the face of social work and social workers? and another way of politicians pandering to media?
Do you think it was right for GSCC to invite her as a speaker?
Do you think GSCC conference should be boycotted by social workers, in order to deliver a strong message that we no longer tolerate this type of abuse?
I believe teachers, police, medical staff, nurses and every other profession is treated better than social workers. Just have a look at daily mail and sun articles regarding Helen Goddard or any other incidents of wrong doing on the part of any other profession. It has never ever turned into a witch hunt like that of social workers.
You know why? Because they don't tolerate it.
Because they have professional pride and will defend their profession and have a national body that speaks for them and defends their professional stance. No paper dares generalise the poor quality of education in most schools and/or attribute it to the teachers in general.
I'd love to know what other social workers think about this.
Roberts: And now GSCC (the regulatory body for social work) rewards her by inviting her as a speaker in GSCC's annual conference. The irony of it is the conference is entitled "Social work: a profession to be proud of".
I was planning to go to the GSCC conference however when I noticed Deirdre Saunders the Sun's Agony Aunt as a speaker I was completely turned off. I will not be going and I would urge any self respecting social worker not to go. This is the same woman that went after social workers. HOW DISGUISTING!!
SHAME ON THE GSCC!!!!
I agree. Deirdre Saunders place on the Task Force is a complete joke and to give her any kind of credence makes a mockery of the pretence that the GSCC represents social workers in any way. There are a couple of academic social workers knocking around the upper echelons of the GSCC but probably no-one who remembers front-line practice and this just adds insult to injury.
i agree with what you say but please look up the meaning of schizophrenia as i dont think you have used it in the right context and i am on a bit of a misson at the moment!
I think that as social workers we should try to understand others and their points of views. It is good to have someone who doesn't understand but who is willing to learn. Anyone who went to the BASW conference where Tim Loughton [ Shadow Children's Minister] attended will have heard him say that he is trained as an Archaelogist but he wants to learn about what we do and why we do it and made the effort to come and spend time with social workers.
I decided to go and meet Deidre Sanders and found her ok. She isn't dynamic by any means and has plodded at her own job for 29 years but maybe she can ask questions as an outsider.
As an Innovator who is now involved in setting up a social enterprise to advance my model AERO [ Aspirations, Encouragement, Realism and Openness] I think that we have to live in a real world and if we want to get rid of some or most of the ridiculous bureancracy that has governed our work for too long we have to grit our teeth occasionally and face the enemy.
Is a witch hunt worse than some of the rubbish landed on us by our idiot government.
I asked Deidre about the witch hunt and she agreed that the whole think was handled very badly.
What we need is Deidre and her Editor together and then we could trully challenge the witch hunt Why not ask the GSCC to get her Editor their too
It's hard I know ...but you have to try.....go on
It says it all realy. The GSCC are showing their true colours and would like to charge us £170+ to hear the crap. Well, I reckon the GSCC are not much longer for this life - tears are creeping down my face as I think about it, in sheer laughter!
I can safely say I will not be attending and any who do must seriously consider their position in the profession. How dare these fools even entertain the Sun - I mean I do think social work needs to 'shape up' in some respects but I think I do not need the Sun to tell me how, even if they had the first clue how to do so. Dorks. The same applies to the GSCC, what do they know about social work? Answers please on a pinhead - I have a microscope.
Beam me up Scotty, please!
Wilt
Blogging for Social Care www.regulatorwatch.co.uk
It’s about respect! JustMe I appreciate your comment but I disagree with you. I think it is disgraceful what the Sun and Dedire Saunders have done and continue to do to social workers and the social work profession. The sun and tabloids like that feed of story’s like Baby P and will continue to do so and for that attitude they are rewarded both by government and the public as they feed off public ignorance. I can think of a hundred more deserving social workers who belong on the taskforce or as a speaker for the GSCC. There is no other profession that would ever allow a columnist from the Sun to be a keynote speaker or on their taskforce. Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers etc would be outraged & they would let government know in no uncertain terms. The sun would never go after these professions as they know they will have such a strong blacklash that they do not dare. Imagine a person with no financial background applying for a job as the head of a multi national bank – not only will you not get the job but you will be laughed out of the building. But just about anyone can do social work and be on the social work taskforce everyone except social workers!! I believe that social workers need to start respecting themselves more and saying NO to things like Dedire Saunders being on the taskforce or a speaker for GSCC. When we start respecting ourselves and our profession, other professionals and the public will start respecting us. Until that time comes we will continue to be treated the way we are treated both by society and the media.
It’s about respect!
JustMe I appreciate your comment but I disagree with you. I think it is disgraceful what the Sun and Dedire Saunders have done and continue to do to social workers and the social work profession. The sun and tabloids like that feed of story’s like Baby P and will continue to do so and for that attitude they are rewarded both by government and the public as they feed off public ignorance.
I can think of a hundred more deserving social workers who belong on the taskforce or as a speaker for the GSCC.
There is no other profession that would ever allow a columnist from the Sun to be a keynote speaker or on their taskforce.
Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers etc would be outraged & they would let government know in no uncertain terms. The sun would never go after these professions as they know they will have such a strong blacklash that they do not dare.
Imagine a person with no financial background applying for a job as the head of a multi national bank – not only will you not get the job but you will be laughed out of the building. But just about anyone can do social work and be on the social work taskforce everyone except social workers!!
I believe that social workers need to start respecting themselves more and saying NO to things like Dedire Saunders being on the taskforce or a speaker for GSCC. When we start respecting ourselves and our profession, other professionals and the public will start respecting us.
Until that time comes we will continue to be treated the way we are treated both by society and the media.
I think the fact that some other professionals want to learn about social work is not only good, but also necessary, if there is ever going to be any genuine understanding of the role of social work and social workers. However, Deidre Saundre simply used social work and social workers with the sole objective of increasing her own readership regardless of its' implications. This is the cheap contorted mentality that Sun and other tabloid are made of. However, my points in particular are:
1. Deidre Saundre may be a fine mother or a fine woman in her private life, however, judging by her articles in relation with Baby P, I can't say the same thing about her professional attitude or integrity.
2. Social work taskforce has an enormous task ahead and is definitely not the place for someone who wants to learn about social work. It should have been composed of the experts in the field who would openly consult with other professionals (both social workers and other related professions) as well as service usres, voluntary and statutory organisations, etc. (as the taskforce is doing).
3. GSCC annual conference also is not the place for someone who wants to learn about social work.
We don't need people like Deidre Saunders or her editor. If we maintain our professional pride; do our job with dedication and due diligence; boycott papers, media and/or institutions that do not have due respect for our profession; seriously investigate wrong doings of all kinds with appropriate and transparent attribution of responsibility; have greater unity amongst ourselves as social workers; make sure the public is aware of the great job that many social workers perform on a daily basis; stop the blame culture and train people who make mistakes from early and simple ones remembering no one is infallible; and seriously punish those who after due support and training still fail to meet the standards of the profession then we should be able to regain the trust of the public and shame rubbish peddlers such as Deidre Saunders and her editor.
I truly believe that we should stop rewarding the media with chocolate bars for not beating us (such as community care awards to media, etc.). They must learn to respect social work as a profession without any bribe or any chocolate bars.
Hi lizzer,
I appreciate the comment about schizophrenia and believe it is appropriately used. Aside from psychiatric description you will find that schizophrenia stands for 'Contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitude'! :-))
I totally agree with Roberts. I've stated on other threads that the inclusion of Deidre Saunders on the taskforce makes a mockery of it and risks undermining any credibility it may have. It was pure political pandering to the media, in this case to the Sun. We've got to keep Murdoch happy after all.
Can you imagine Deidre being asked to sit on a taskforce for doctors, nurses, teachers, or lawyers, etc.? No, neither can I, because it just wouldn't happen.
I think it depends on what her role is:
I have absolutely no problem with her being invited to learn about our profession - I appreciate that she is one of the few members of media who is taking a closer look even if the words horse, door and bolted spring to mind. If we want to raise the profile of social work we must move away from this closed rank mentality and welcome Deidre with open arms!
However - If Deidre is on the taskforce to TEACH us or tell us anything then please can someone fetch a needle and thread to stitch my sides back together! I dont make a habit of reading the problem pages in red tops but im fairly certain that they deal with petty, titalating sex issues and low level relationship problems - not multiple sexual abuse cases, placement break downs, financial exploitation of older adults, childhood bereavement, long term drug and alcohol abuse. Quite how this woman can teach us anything is beyond me. Im sure she has many skills in many different areas and I dont wish to belittle her as a person but she and her employers have demonstrated on numerous occassions that they have very little insight into social work.
I cannot believe how embarressing and depressing it is becoming to be a social worker. No other professional in the world would have to suffer the humiliation of having someone from a tabloid newspaper- the same tabloid that fuels the never ending hatred and misunderstanding of social work that large sections of the public and the media seem to thrive on- seconded onto a taskforce to decide the future of their profession. It was the worst kind of pandering, and I wish that somebody could have taken action on our behalf to stop it. Now the body that is supposed to represent us and be our voice is inviting her to speak at our conference!
I am furious about this. It is completely misguided and stupid. It will do nothing to increase the level of understanding and respect that is around for our profession and in my opinion makes us look even more unprofessional and stupid than Diedre's readers think we are. I have no interest in hearing what she has to say on any subject and totally support a boycott of the conference.
How can we take this forward as a group to show BASW the strength of feeling about this?
sorry, meant GSCC not BASW!
scot1: No other professional in the world would have to suffer the humiliation of having someone from a tabloid newspaper- the same tabloid that fuels the never ending hatred and misunderstanding of social work that large sections of the public and the media seem to thrive on- seconded onto a taskforce to decide the future of their profession. It was the worst kind of pandering, and I wish that somebody could have taken action on our behalf to stop it. Now the body that is supposed to represent us and be our voice is inviting her to speak at our conference! I am furious about this. It is completely misguided and stupid...
No other professional in the world would have to suffer the humiliation of having someone from a tabloid newspaper- the same tabloid that fuels the never ending hatred and misunderstanding of social work that large sections of the public and the media seem to thrive on- seconded onto a taskforce to decide the future of their profession. It was the worst kind of pandering, and I wish that somebody could have taken action on our behalf to stop it. Now the body that is supposed to represent us and be our voice is inviting her to speak at our conference!
I am furious about this. It is completely misguided and stupid...
This echos my stance and I agree we need to carry this forward, I have noted with interest that BASW is becoming more proactive and is being critical of the GSCC at the moment. Perhaps we can carry this forward with an online petition to express out views on this matter?
My only concern is that social workers are so busy looking after other people that they tend to forget about themselves...
What do others think?
Pls see link below for article with regards to BASW
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/08/26/112437/conduct-basw-lambasts-gscc-over-right-to-fair-hearing.html
I posted a bit of a rant on my blog and for what it's worth, when I looked through my daily stats, I see it was visited by the GSCC..but it's just one voice at the end of the day.
I'd definitely pick this up again - I find the cost of the conference quite exclusive and can't imagine many social workers going (as opposed to social work academics and social work managers who can always find funding for these things).
Maybe Deirdre feels safer with these sorts than at the Community Care Live (free) show that she pulled out of when asked to attend.
Whenever I think about her my skin crawls - not because I don't think media representation is all evil but they could have chosen someone who actually had experience of social work or was particularly knowledgeable about it. She is a pawn of the government to gain popularity for them in the wake of the uproar about Haringey.
Hi everyone
The GSCC has sent us a comment in relation to this issue which I have pasted below:
After the tragic death of baby Peter newspapers were littered with sweeping criticisms and misconceptions of social workers. Opportunities for social workers to challenge these views were few and remain so. We are sure many of you would jump at the chance to set the record straight.
That’s precisely why we have invited two journalists to take part in a debate at our annual conference on raising the status of the profession and addressing the representation of social workers. Attendees can put their opinions to Deidre Saunders of the Sun and the Observer’s Tracy McVeigh as well as Nigel Clark, who is helping to set up a professional body for pharmacists, Hilton Dawson of BASW and our chair Rosie Varley.
Inviting a representative from a particularly critical newspaper, which is read by millions every day, is a step towards addressing the status of the profession. If we can raise understanding amongst those who put newspapers together, we can influence the views of the wider public. Deidre also sits on the Social Work Taskforce which will greatly affect the future of the profession.
Responding to criticism by turning away will not make it disappear. We are offering the opportunity not just to listen but to have an active part in the debate.
CareSpace support
Just a moment, please - I will test the GSCC response on the "bollocks scales."
Mmmmm, oooooeeerrrr, wow. The bollocks scale just blew a fuse. Are these GSCC people on the same planet? Utter ferkin Dorks.
Wilt (grrrr)
Before responding directly to GSCC comment I am pleased to see that they have shown some interest in social workers opinions and decided to provide an official response.
In response to your comments however, please note the following:
1. Your state:
"After the tragic death of baby Peter newspapers were littered with sweeping criticisms and misconceptions of social workers. Opportunities for social workers to challenge these views were few and remain so. We are sure many of you would jump at the chance to set the record straight."
My reply:
That is accurate and definitely social workers would love to do present their side of the story, particularly because social work does not have any professional organisation that bothered to speak up. I am not talking about the recent months when it is gradually starting to be fashionable to defend social work. I am speaking about all of last year and early this year. Even people like Liz Davies spoke in rather recriminatory tone about social workers (see her interview with Channel 4).
Haringay Director (Sharon Shoesmith) was the only person who spoke of this tragic event in reasonable terms that is to say it was a serious failure of the system, and that no one will be able to guarantee that such de-humanising events will not happen again. Although, this was the truth, it played right into the hands of people like Diedre Saundre as the media and public bloodlust demanded for greater sacrificial offering. Therefore, the political establishment axed Shoesmith. I must emphasise that I do believe that Ms. Shoesmith had overall responsibility, and that disasters in a social work department is not a question that can be resolved by staff. It requires a change of management culture, starting from the Directors of various services.
I must add that the gagging orders imposed upon social workers basically mean as a social worker, one needs to 'put up or shut up'.
2. You state:
"That’s precisely why we have invited two journalists to take part in a debate at our annual conference on raising the status of the profession and addressing the representation of social workers. Attendees can put their opinions to Deidre Saunders of the Sun and the Observer’s Tracy McVeigh as well as Nigel Clark, who is helping to set up a professional body for pharmacists, Hilton Dawson of BASW and our chair Rosie Varley."
I am afraid that you have completely missed the point of this discussion.
Social work does not need people like that to be sympathetic to the profession. Social work needs to be respected and not harassed into offering chocolate bars to the bully.
As I stated earlier in this space, I am afraid that Deidre Saundres has neither the intellectual capacity nor the professional integrity required to ever genuinely understand much less sympathise with the truly importance role and challenges of social work and social workers.
I say this based on the underhanded manner in which her newspaper treated the entire social work profession without any regard for the life, safety, dignity, integrity and dedication of thousands and thousands of truly hardworking social workers in this country. As I have previously indicated, engaging in dialogue is always welcomed by social workers, however, I strongly believe that social work and social workers should stop bribing the media with honorific, awards, invitations, and membership in social work's professional and/or reform organisations (such as the taskforce) in order to be allowed to exist (let alone live).
3. You sate:
"Inviting a representative from a particularly critical newspaper, which is read by millions every day, is a step towards addressing the status of the profession. If we can raise understanding amongst those who put newspapers together, we can influence the views of the wider public. Deidre also sits on the Social Work Taskforce which will greatly affect the future of the profession.
Responding to criticism by turning away will not make it disappear. We are offering the opportunity not just to listen but to have an active part in the debate."
I have already mentioned what I think of tabloids such as Sun. However, if I may suggest, you should not engage with unscrupulous cheap shot journalists who thrive on public's misery and reframing of serious individual and social problems (even though she is part of the Taskforce, thanks to Ed Balls). Try to invite somebody like John Snow who at least still has a trace of dignity and integrity left in him and can represent the better times of British journalism.
I do not believe any social worker would want to turn away from criticism. After all, this is the profession which has made reflective and reflexive thinking an integral part of its practice. However, engaging with people such as Deidre Saundre only serves to acknowledge and reinforce their hegemonic position of power and manipulation.
Social workers have listened for too long a time. It is time GSCC and the government started listening to social workers.
If I may add one final point, with all the contributions and government subsidies you must run the conference at a more reasonable cost to social workers. The current charge is exorbitant for majority of practitioners. Not to say anyone would like to participate, at least not as long as you maintain Deidre Saundre as your speaker.
If you want to show sensitivity and respect towards social workers, please do so without social workers having to run an online petition to call on you to do so.
This would send a clear message to those who continue to distort painful realities for their personal gain and/or business benefit.
You can only raise the profession's status BY TRULY STANDING UP AND SAYING: SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
Roberts has put a better argument than I could but just to add/emphasise - I have no problem with a journalist being present at the conference. It is just Deirdre Sanders presence that I object to. She was placed on the Taskforce as a ploy by Balls to pander to the Sun-reading public for cheap votes. She has no place on a professional task-force - sure, involve and engage journalists but to invite her is condoning the political placement on that taskforce.
I believe teachers, police, medical staff, nurses and every other profession is treated better than social workers. Just have a look at daily mail and sun articles regarding Helen Goddard or any other incidents of wrong doing on the part of any other profession. It has never ever turned into a witch hunt like that of social workers
CB, you must be a doing something right if the GSCC want to visit your website and of course it just goes to show that they visit these pages and various others in stealth mode - or at least they think they are in stealth. They visit our blog www.regulatorwatch.co.uk very frequently. We like that cos they get the flavour of the contempt felt for them by the profession - not that it makes any difference, they carry on in usual Dork fashion in the hope it will all blow away. The only thing to blow away will be the GSCC. Excellent
Role on the social work college, located somewhere away from London and Rugby to ensure the same fools are not re-employed to be an utter disgrace under a new name. I vote for York - a good distance away. Perhaps somewhere in remote Cornwall, even better. That is assuming Balls, another Dork and an evil one at that, approves of the College. Perhaps he outsource it to the Sun to operate. Gawd help us.
I totally agree. As a social worker, I am more than happy to debate with journalists as this can only improve the level of understanding amongst the public. However, I am at a complete loss to see how involving Diedre could possibly be instrumental in raising the status of our profession. It can only reduce our status if the public see that we need someone from a tabloid newspaper who clearly has no knowledge of social work whatsoever and a lack of ability to grasp and present important issues to be instrumental in the future of our profession.
This woman may sit on our taskforce but I do not accept her position. I, and many others, feel deeply angry and offended at her ongoing involvement in the shaping of our profession. It is our profession and we should have a say in this. I, for one, want nothing whatsoever to do with her and want her removed from the taskforce. If the GSCC think she is the key to solving our problems they are more out of touch than I realised. Thankfully it is too expensive for me to attend the conference so I will not need to feel that I am missing out because I boycotted it to avoid Diedre.
To the GSCC please invite credible journalists who are professional, respected and have something useful to contribute to your conference, but Diedre does not fit that criteria. If you are truly interested in addressing the problems of social work, LISTEN TO US, and stop shoving this awful woman down our throats.
I think it's worth while taking a step back and reflecting on why social work found itself in the dog house.
Large numbers of ordinary people felt that a combination of social work incompetence and system failures led to a child's death. Sharon Shoesmith's comments were a PR disaster for the profession (and if you doubt that, its worth reading again her 'I certainly won't be resigning..' press conference). Against that backdrop Dear Deidre articulated the views of her readership quite well. Does she and those who share her views deserve to be listened to? I would say definitely. It strikes me as arrogant to do otherwise. Who is it we think we’re working for?
Of course there will be a gulf between respective opinions. But social work can't just assume a position of superiority and ignore other viewpoints; debate is far better than boycotts, who knows perhaps both sides would learn something
I should have stayed stayed out that night in the club before the common sense vs sociological thought Lecture. Maybe i would have slept in and missed the lecture, picked up an STD and wrote to Dear Deidre about it. Then i could quite happily accept this and put down reading the sun newspaper as personal development. Still maybe would be slightly worried about the fact, that its a PR scam or spin. But hey instead if the sun is writing good rubbish about us its ok, instead of bad rubbish! So we should just take the hit deal and with Dear Deidre and Rupert Murdoch and forget how his many news sources around the world have just occasionally stigmatised and alienated many vunerbale groups in societies. And if we forget to sort out the stuff we actually need to sort, whilst giving Dear Deidre a catch up and learning how we can better communicate with the media.
Cynical yes but what do you expect when i come back from holiday excited to be starting my MA social work next week to read this!
Hi Mike b,
You make an important point about social work and a reflection on why and how social work, as you put it, "found itself in the dog house".
And I fully agree that we do need a serious reflection both on a personal and professional basis and social work does indeed need to reconfigure its position which many hope would be led by the taskforce. Furthermore, I must say that as I indicated in my previous replies, I do believe that directors and managers (service managers and team managers) should be held accountable for failures (after all as every social worker knows all decisions are made or at least ratified by management). Therefore, I think Sharon Shoesmith rightly was held accountable. But, I still believe we must critically decipher her message. What she said about unavoidability of some dehumanising and tragic child deaths is as sad as it is real. That is important to note.
I must add Deidre Saundre did not express the views of her readership. There is a difference between wanting to discuss matters and name calling. This is not the first time she and her paper have published total and utter rubbish. I fully agree that we must listen and exchange opinions with her public/readership, however, it has to be based on mutual respect and civilised communication, and not some barbaric summary judgement.
irresponsible accusations have caused serious harm and threatened the life and families of several social workers (Some of whom I personally know). One of them a social worker for 25 years said she is not surprised people don’t bring out the cross and burn her at stake.
Furthermore, your “Dear Deidre” has not published any articles to explain the true role and daily sacrifices of thousands of dedicated and hard working social workers.
You say:
Debate is definitely better than boycott, but in GSCC conference there is no room for debate. It is a sham that makes a mockery of social work reforms and the recent talks of raising the profile of the profession.
With regards to assuming a position of superiority, let us not forget that social workers have been reduced so low that even Ed Balls realised something needs to be done about the image of the profession. Therefore, if anything, they have always been on the receiving end.
Social work has found itself in this position due to a diversity of reasons, not the least the divergence between government social and fiscal policy. Where on the one hand, we are trying to help every child realise their potential (or so says Every Child Matters), while on the other hand there are constant budget reductions, closing of different services and McDonaldisation of social work and social services. Aside from several other reasons, that I believe is one of the main reasons why social work has got to where it has.
I must emphasise that I am not trying to pass the buck and I do believe that change begins with the first person. In the age of post-modernity and reflexivity we can’t afford to sit passively hoping that government or someone else would solve social work problems. Social workers must take responsibility for their position and the future of their profession. They must proactively contribute to a positive reconfiguration of this wonderful profession in a more positive and dynamic manner, where interaction with service user and humanistic value take centre stage. We should stop trying to solve twenty first century problems with nineteenth century solutions.
You say: who knows perhaps both sides would learn something
Well I agree and strongly believe the best thing you can be a good student (a good learner in life). And from experience, I have learnt. For social work to have any possibility in future, it must start with a proactive action by social workers taking charge of their own destiny and by making sure everyone understands that debate is always welcome, and harassment and witch hunt are never tolerated.
Therefore, there is not only a gulf between my position and that of Deidre Saundre’s, we are simply in different worlds. I have to answer for what I do and deeply believe in social, ethical and moral justice.
As you see I am less than enthusiastic in sharing your warmth for your “Dear Deidre”.
All the best…
Robert
I haven't got a problem with the principle of engaging in debate with the Sun et al or inviting them to conferences to share their opinion. It's just that I don't think it will actually change anything because reason and informed debate are hardly hallmarks of the tabloid press. So why bother?
What I am certainly against is the inclusion of Deidre on the social work taskforce for all the reasons already identified. The pathetic and patronising response from the GSCC could well have been written by Ed Balls. Grow a spine GSCC, stand up for the workforce and stand up to the government. After all, aren't you meant to be the guardians of high standards?
Social work is ''in the dog house' because the errors of a minority of workers (FROM A NUMBER OF PROFESSIONS) which led to the worst possible outcome were presented by the tabloid press to the general public as just another story of widespread social worker incompetence. The tone and language of the reporting by the sun was appauling and did not allow readers the opportunity to hear about the context of poor social worker training, lack of placements to prepare social workers for their task, young and very inexperienced workers thrown in to cases involving very challenging, potentially frightening and complex families. If the 'ordinary people' had understood this would there have been such widespread disgust and hatred targetted towards social workers by these armchair experts- I doubt it. Health workers were also involved in the mistakes around baby Peter, perhaps Diedre should be involved in leading developments in child protection training for doctors and be invited to share her wisdom at one of their annual conferences. Do you think they would welcome that? Would you call them arrogant and superior if they did not welcome her with open arms? Perhaps not. It is only social work that has been singled out by the tabloid press for a hate campaign and it is only social work that now has one of the people who did most of the harm to its profession sitting on their taskforce.
You can try as hard as you like to put a positive spin on this, in my opinion it is an insult to the profession. If this is the best solution that the government can come up with for improving social work then it just goes to show how complex the problems are. I am sick of waiting for BASW or the GSCC to be a strong and supportive voice which represents OUR views- they do need to grow a spine. If they don't, and no one else steps in to do what they should be doing, we will always be an easy target for the tabloids- the sun would not dare to treat nurses in this way, they would certainly be strongly supported as they have been in the past by their representative bodies. No such luck for us, we have to look to our abuser apparently for help and guidance.
In summary, Diedre did not articule well at all. She did not represent the views of her readers-she formed them. She did not debate-she attacked. As a social worker I work with people from all walks of life and manage to get through without complaints of superiority and arrogance. Like many social workers people seem to appreciate the help that I give them. I do not need to read the Sun or be lectured to by Diedre in order to be able to tune in to 'ordinary people.' I have scanned through the Sun a few times and have yet to learn anything other than how amazing it is that people will pay money to read such trash.
Why haven't you got an option on whether there is support for her invitation? Or is this anotehr example of social workers only wanting to interact with likeminded peole and not have to go through the @indignity' of having to deal with arguments they do not like?
Hi Nikat Erol,
I must say that this is my first time that I have done any posting of this kind and the only thing that compelled me to do the posting was the outrageously disregardful behaviour of GSCC.
I typed the message and noticed there was a polling option. I simply assumed that for each question there will be the possibility to agree or disagree. I did not realise it will just present one side of the question. I was genuine and am genuine interested to know what social workers think of this.
In any case due to my error the vote has become meaningless, but I should hope the discussion can develop in a civilised and meaningful manner.
By the way, I do understand that you're not a social worker, and would love to exchange opinions.
And although you indicate: "Or is this anotehr example of social workers only wanting to interact with likeminded peole and not have to go through the @indignity' of having to deal with arguments they do not like?"
Believe you me, social workers do deal with loads of stuff they would have rather not deal with and try to preserve their humanity and dignity.
I am truly sorry you feel social workers do not tolerate disagreement. I do believe that there are some social workers who do not deserve to be a social worker and must be helped accountable. However, I do also realise that there are thousands of social workers doing their real best to make things a bit better for their service users.
The fact that the system is plagued with a 'Band aid' mentality is a deep rooted problem the needs serious reflection. But if you get to know the system better you will note that social workers are in many ways just a minute cog in a huge bureaucracy. In any case please go ahead and let us exchange ideas, perhaps we can both enhance our understanding.
One fortunate consequence of Dear Diedre's invovlement is that she's taking suggestions on her web site for ideas for the task force, which provides Nikat Erol et al with an additional avenue to express their views.
Concepts like social justice, morality, ethics are not owned by social work and any debate on how social policy or social work development needs to include people from outside the profession - the broader the canvass the better. To demonise Dear Deidre is foolish, when Ed Balls sent the inspectors back into Haringey it owed more to her efforts than Ofsted's. In the same way social workers might purport to have a commitment to social justice, why not extend the courtesy of believing she does as well?
I would argue that the key reason social work finds itself under critical scrutiny is a divergence between social workers practice and ideology as compared to values commonly held outside the profession. Now that has often been the case and is not itself a bad thing, but if the gap widens too much the mandate social workers have to practice becomes undermined. In other words, you get hundreds of people marching in protest at perceived social work failures. .Standing up for social work does not mean circling the wagons against imagined enemies. It should mean debating, listening and where necessary welcoming change.
Roberts, actually I am a qualified and registered socual worker with 26 years of generic experince. I just don't accept the usual self serving "we are the hardest working and misunderstood" self winge of most soical workers
mike b: One fortunate consequence of Dear Diedre's invovlement is that she's taking suggestions on her web site for ideas for the task force, which provides Nikat Erol et al with an additional avenue to express their views. Concepts like social justice, morality, ethics are not owned by social work and any debate on how social policy or social work development needs to include people from outside the profession - the broader the canvass the better. To demonise Dear Deidre is foolish, when Ed Balls sent the inspectors back into Haringey it owed more to her efforts than Ofsted's. In the same way social workers might purport to have a commitment to social justice, why not extend the courtesy of believing she does as well? I would argue that the key reason social work finds itself under critical scrutiny is a divergence between social workers practice and ideology as compared to values commonly held outside the profession. Now that has often been the case and is not itself a bad thing, but if the gap widens too much the mandate social workers have to practice becomes undermined. In other words, you get hundreds of people marching in protest at perceived social work failures. .Standing up for social work does not mean circling the wagons against imagined enemies. It should mean debating, listening and where necessary welcoming change. Mike b while I agree with most of this, I take issue with your use of “perceived social work failures” I happen to think that some of the criticism are about real and tangible failures with horrific consequences which should be the subject of public debate. What I find unacceptable is a so-called profession regarding any criticism as an attack and any blame an affront. In 26 years of practice I know that I and colleagues have made bad decisions and justified actions or not acted on the basis of our unique core values. These may have not lead to deaths or significant harm but I never felt that I should be above scrutiny or my practice beyond reproach. I find it distasteful to read or hear social workers justify themselves on a delusion of being the most overworked, under resourced and misunderstood workers while around them they see but fail to tackle poor practice.
Mike b while I agree with most of this, I take issue with your use of “perceived social work failures” I happen to think that some of the criticism are about real and tangible failures with horrific consequences which should be the subject of public debate. What I find unacceptable is a so-called profession regarding any criticism as an attack and any blame an affront. In 26 years of practice I know that I and colleagues have made bad decisions and justified actions or not acted on the basis of our unique core values. These may have not lead to deaths or significant harm but I never felt that I should be above scrutiny or my practice beyond reproach. I find it distasteful to read or hear social workers justify themselves on a delusion of being the most overworked, under resourced and misunderstood workers while around them they see but fail to tackle poor practice.
You state:
mike b: One fortunate consequence of Dear Diedre's invovlement is that she's taking suggestions on her web site for ideas for the task force, which provides Nikat Erol et al with an additional avenue to express their views.
I don't believe social work needs Diedre Saundre to take suggestions on her website in order to feedback into the taskforce. There are many more appropriate avenues such those the taskforce has already undertaken or additionally setting up a separate website for this purpose, or giving the mandate for a public opinion survey to a professional private agency or research organisation, etc.
Therefore, although I view the idea of gathering as wide and as diverse a range of opinions as possible as a very important matter and even essential, I do not believe social work needed our Deidre Saundre to do that, and wonder if that is the only reason she was included in the taskforce.
mike b:Concepts like social justice, morality, ethics are not owned by social work and any debate on how social policy or social work development needs to include people from outside the profession - the broader the canvass the better. To demonise Dear Deidre is foolish, when Ed Balls sent the inspectors back into Haringey it owed more to her efforts than Ofsted's. In the same way social workers might purport to have a commitment to social justice, why not extend the courtesy of believing she does as well?
As mentioned above I agree with you about the need for an open debate and genuine listening and that concepts like social justice, morality, and ethics are not owned by anyone person or profession. However, I do believe an important part of a genuine debate that is aimed at finding solutions is openness to new ideas and listening to opposite party's opinions. However, when it comes to opinions Deidre Saundre is only opinionated period. The fact that Ofsted has not done a proper job and still is not doing a proper job is public knowledge. They like GSCC are a highly politicised and bureaucratic establishment set up to protect the interest of those in power and nothing more. Furthermore, you want to know the truth? The truth is that in spite of Moira Gibbs Chairing of the taskforce, I am afraid we will not see the real changes that social work so desparately needs. We will see some proposals that may even look revolutionary but, I can bet the shift off my back we will not see all the changes necessary in one shot. You know why? because that is not feasible nor possible at this time. It require genuine will and cooperation and a lot more socially aware and culturally educated politicians and the public than we have. So, all I hope for is to have at least some reasonbale reforms out of the taskforce that would not worsen the situation and that would be a bit more that cosmetics or discussion about young social workers and their lack of knowledge, and all this sort of scapgoats. Social workers, both senio and newly qualified ones, in general do not appy any research or theoretical knowledge in their practice, simply because even those with PhDs teaching social work in academia are unable to do so. Social work has many problems and one of it is it does not have its own academic knowledge base and research methodology. I believe aside from several other factors, that for sake of brevity I would not mention, this is one fundamental reason why social work is so devalued and under-rated with respect to other professionals.
You see some private organisations do that. I remember once speaking to a bus driver from National Express he said their inspectors dress up as passengers or sometimes as a homeless person etc. and at times may try to get on the bus without a ticket or are rude with the driver etc. to see how the driver reacts, and whether or not the driver follows compay rules and policies.
If the government truly wanted to know what is truly happening in social services, all they had to do is send undercover inspectors to various local authorities. Inspectors who apply and begin work in local authorities as newly qualified social workers, or as senior social workers, or managers, etc.
I think they know that if they did that more than half of social service departments would have to be shut down.
But if they do that, just the thought that the service managers or directors are under watch and will be held accountable and that they can not identify who is inspector and who is not, would make everybody behave really a lot better and make sure they do a proper job. No, more shoving of stuff under the carpet. No more faking dates and cooking the books with respect to timescales, no more quick fix solutions, etc. etc.
But who wants that? Surely not the politicians who are shutting down services, nor the directors who think if you tell people let's do a good job everybody will and that people magically can resolve service user problems without any resources.
So as you see the Ofsted checks of Haringey don't mean much. And they never will as long as Ofsted is what it is. They have no interest in uncovering and addressing the real problems of the system, they are the high priests of the political temple seeking sacrificial offerings to the gods of public opinion. Just remember what happened to the teacher who made the documentary about what is happening inside the classrooms. Ofsted was not interested in the problems presented, they were concerned with the teacher breaking her silence and speaking out about those problems. So they refocused the discussion and discharged her from her job etc.
So you see my friend, I am very willing to listen, I am very open to discuss, and I have no intention of demonising anyone. Deidre Saundre did what was convenient for herself and her paper, that is increase its readership through polemic nonsense. In the age of tabloid who cares about the truth. If you don't believe me listen to Max Clifford podcast on community care. My point is not to demonise her. My point is she did what was convenient for her personal gain (more readership etc) and her paper like any other employee, the problem is she did that at the expense of a profession and a group of professionals who themselves often are the victims of the system. People forget that loads of social workers themselves come from poor and problematic backgrounds and were not born of devil encarnated.
Furthermore, she continues to do her own thing with the objective of increasing her own readership, well that is her business.
Inviting her to GSCC conference makes it the business of social workers, and I think it is a bad invitation and truly continued pandering to media. Believe you me, no other profession would have done this. Just imagine Deidre demonising doctors and being invited to their conference. Sounds impossible and an absurdity.
You see, social work is not under scrutity, it is the social workers who are under scrutiny and that is because they are the easiest scapegoat possible. Why talk about politicians, social and economic policy, GSCC, Ofsted, etc. when you can blame everything on social workers and even there we save all the senior ones and just focus on newly qualified ones to limit the damage and the changes required.
Social work will not get anywhere by bribing those who beat social workers. This behaviour will only embolden the bully and social workers will continue to be more and more abused by everyone from politician, GSCC, Ofsted, media and the public to their own managers and directors and even their own colleagues.
Social work needs to respect itself and social workers need to realise if they want to be considered as professionals then they must act as professionals and they must be proud of their profession. Obviously proud and not arrogant about their profession. Those are two very differnt things.
I bet you GSCC will ignore this completely and will continue with their conference and Deidre as their speaker. This is just emblematic and only the tip of the iceberg.
Unfortunately, such humiliations and arrogance on the part of GSCC and everyone else only contributes to weaken social workers' morale and further impoverish social work profession, as a result of which everyone including service users suffer.
Social workers must come together and challenge the system. That is the only way. Through active and constructive participation with an open mind and discretion. The discretion part starts with boycotting the GSCC conference.
Sorry this got to be longer than I would have wanted. Just tried to be as clear as possible.
All the best,
Roberts.
yes, nobody is saying that mistakes were not made but why is it only social work mistakes that are publicised in such a vindictive and damaging manner. They are not debated by the tabloids, a one sided story is presented complete with photographs of the unfortunate souls involved, with a call for them to be sacked-no questions, no debate. This is not debating the issue. We welcome a debate on issues around social work as that can only be in our interest- the public can hear the other side of the story. However, the Sun has been unable to achieve that, and that is why it is bizarre and unacceptable to me that Diedre above all 'journalists' has been given such a high profile role in relation to social work. Terrible mistakes are made in health and other agencies often but we do not see photos of the doctors/nurses/teachers involved plastered all over the front of the tabloids with callings for them to be sacked/publically flogged. That is the issue here. We are not moaning or saying that we work harder than anyone else. That would be ridiculous but there are specific issues around child protection social work that are extremely challenging in the current climate, and the public are not aware of them thanks to Diedre et al. We are saying that when we make a mistake we want to be treated with same professional courtesey as other professionals. Debate the issues, do not attack individuals who were trying to do a job in very challenging circumstances and did not have the benefit of a crystal ball.
Nihat, if you are really a social worker, and you say that you have made mistakes in your practice, do you not recognise an imbalance in the way that social work mistakes are reported in comparison to those of other agencies? Do you want to support your colleagues by trying to tackle it or just stand by in the hope that you don't one day find yourself with your own picture on the front of a national newspaper with the description 'hapless' for the world to see.
Dear Nihat Erol,
My appologies for misjudging your post, and my sincere appreciation for your dedication, in spite of the practice difficulties that you may have encountered in these years.
Please read my response to Mike b. and you will note that I am very critical of those who shove issues under the carpet. I like a straight and open debate and believe the only way things can get better is by recognising the real problems and trying to address issues openly. However, social work can not change from the bottom only, it has to change from the top. Directors do not take any responsibility (See Victoria Climbie case). In fact if Sharon Shoesmith would not have angered the media as she did, she would most probably still have her job.
In most local authorities cases are managed based on the will of the managers but when things go wrong social workers take the fall. I think responsibility runs through the system. Begining with social policy down to maangers, social workers and even service users (inclusion of service users in this discussion may sound harsh, but, I believe a lot of service users do need to take greater responsibility for their lives and its outcome).
So, no doubt there are many failures and social workers are responsible for many shortcomings within the system, but they are not the root cause. If the management cutlure would change and focus on human values and more fundamental support as well as face to face work with service users social work will begin to address some of the real problems that are out there rather than the current cosmetic interventions.
Roberts
richards: yes, nobody is saying that mistakes were not made but why is it only social work mistakes that are publicised in such a vindictive and damaging manner. They are not debated by the tabloids, a one sided story is presented complete with photographs of the unfortunate souls involved, with a call for them to be sacked-no questions, no debate. This is not debating the issue. We welcome a debate on issues around social work as that can only be in our interest- the public can hear the other side of the story. However, the Sun has been unable to achieve that, and that is why it is bizarre and unacceptable to me that Diedre above all 'journalists' has been given such a high profile role in relation to social work. Terrible mistakes are made in health and other agencies often but we do not see photos of the doctors/nurses/teachers involved plastered all over the front of the tabloids with callings for them to be sacked/publically flogged. That is the issue here. We are not moaning or saying that we work harder than anyone else. That would be ridiculous but there are specific issues around child protection social work that are extremely challenging in the current climate, and the public are not aware of them thanks to Diedre et al. We are saying that when we make a mistake we want to be treated with same professional courtesey as other professionals. Debate the issues, do not attack individuals who were trying to do a job in very challenging circumstances and did not have the benefit of a crystal ball. Nihat, if you are really a social worker, and you say that you have made mistakes in your practice, do you not recognise an imbalance in the way that social work mistakes are reported in comparison to those of other agencies? Do you want to support your colleagues by trying to tackle it or just stand by in the hope that you don't one day find yourself with your own picture on the front of a national newspaper with the description 'hapless' for the world to see.
Richards, your response is rather interesting and makes my point better than I could about the self defining nature of social work. What makes you think I need to waste my time and pretend to be a social worker?. What is it that makes you as a social worker convince yourself that you would know who I am or that I am not who I say I am? Is your conviction simply because I dare to disagree with you and be critical of some social work practitioners and the self justifying tone of most of what passes for social work debate? Do tell me how you can define a person when you have no knowledge of them?
Of course there is an over reaction to mistakes and it is convenient to demonise social workers. That is not the whole story though is it. As for only social workers being demonized, that is patently not the cas. Beverly Allitt was a nurse, Harold Shipman was a GP and the Pediatrician in the Haringey case was named and is awaiting a GMC disciplinary hearing. It’s the victim mentality of social work that annoys me and the certainty social workers have that they know better than the other colleagues they work with. You are welcome to check my registration if you still find me such a lying toad.
Nihat - your prejudiced approach is exposed by your outrageous comparison of the Haringey social workers with multiple killers Allitt and Shipman.
This post is about the reasons why social workers may be for or against Diedre attending the GSCC conference. I said 'if you are really a social worker' just because I was suprised at your lack of empathy for your colleagues. However, I do believe that you are a social worker. No need to be so angry, this is a debate...what you said you wanted. Strange that you make such sweeping statements about your colleagues 'victim mentality' 'think they know better than their colleagues.' I'm sure you will get a lot from Diedre's input into social work.
Richards, I live in hope and sirprises are alway good. Surfer, good to know you miss the point again. I think you will find I was talking abbout demonisation not multiple murder. But than what would I know given my supposed anger and prejudice. Do carry on defining me, it does amuse.
I'm not going to respond any further to you as this discussion is clearly going nowhere. Let's agree to disagree and perhaps you can go and be amused somewhere else.