Why oh why oh why do the GSCC want to add to this poor woman's plight. She is clear that she failed in her role as a social worker, has had death threats since, faced racial and other abuse (including being called a child murderer) and  previously let down by managers  during the  Victoria Climbié case.

Is this really what the GSCC were set up to achieve i.e. to demonise someone who probably has learned more about social care than most of us could hope?

For me, less 'tabloid' action by the GSCC and more compassion is needed.

Wilt 

 

 

I agree with you Wilt, it seems like her ordeal just goes on

I've always been very sympathetic towards Lisa.  Of course, like most people I can only go by what I've read in the reports and the press, however she does appear to have found herself taking the rap for a collective and system failing.  However I was concerned by the most recent reports in which she is quoted as blaming stress for sending inappropriate emails to the GSCC and for not declaring a conviction.  This does not bode well for dealing with the stress of working in child protection.  This is not the state of mind she should be in if she wants to return to front line practice and it would probably be in her own best interest if she put herself in a position where she is not under such considerable stress.

aitch

You are as always, judging by your other postings, ever the reasonable one with a good point to make. I can understand and respect your opinion on this matter but it is important that all read the issue in the context of the conduct of the GSCC themselves.

In one (notable) Care Standards Tribunal the GSCC put forward as one reason that a person (deemed 'unfit' for Registration due to mental health problems) was how they communicated with the GSCC. I am putting this very simply, but nevertheless correctly, that the Care Standards Tribunal held that although the prospective registrant was (justifiably) frustrated by the unreasonable communications between him and the GSCC, it did not justify a ground for withholding or preventing registration as a social worker, no more than the other perverse reasons that the GSCC suggested in that matter.

Needless to say, in that first of Care Standards Tribunals involving the GSCC, the Registrant won the day, and the GSCC had a warning that reliance upon exchange of correspondence might reflect more poorly upon them - indeed in numerous Care Standards Tribunals the GSCC have been advised, time and time again to improve upon their communication with others.

So, I take not a lot of faith in what the GSCC consider as a measure of good communication. They are found, on a judicial basis, to be very wanting in that regard. If I were Lisa, I suspect I might feel frustrated and let vent in a manner less than constructive with those ever so nice (sic) people at the GSCC.

Anyone can examine the Care Standards findings via their website -  be surprised at a signifcant number of findings against the GSCC. Makes in some cases very sordid reading.

To follow shortly, a major essay on the GSCC 'communication' and investigative (or lack of) approach. You will be amazed.Watch this space!

Wilt

I was more concerned about Lisa having been quoted as citing stress and overwork as her reasons for her 'failings' in her dealings with the GSCC.  If the stress is causing her to make errors of judgement / forget things then it does not bode well for her future practice.  To be citing stress as a reason suggests one of several options: it's really stress which does not bode well; it's an excuse, an easy cop out, which does not bode well; she's losing the will to defend herself against unreasonable accusations, which does not bode well.  If she does get her registration back she will be under considerable scrutiny once she returns to the front line and under immense levels of stress on top of what is an inherently stressful job.  I don't think she should ever have been barred in the first place and I don't think she should have to have been fighting for the right to practice.  My concern now is more about the impact of everything she has been through and is still going through.  If she's not 'fit to practice' then at least some of the blame for that must be laid at the door of how she has been treated since the original tragedy, including no doubt by the GSCC.  Frankly I'm surprised she even wants to return to social work and she has shown considerable tenacity to still be in there fighting for it.

What does this say to anyone practising as a social worker especially in child protection. It appears that management has continued with their careers and Lisa has had the full brunt of what has happened. You would think the way she is hounded that she was responsible alone to what happen to Victoria. Even with Laming Enquiry, and why it was not called Victoria enquiry not much has being learnt and it appears things like this are waiting to happen. It is sad that a profession that goes by codes of practice does not look after its staff in the same way!

It says watch your back, don't trust the system and don't expect much support if things go pear shaped.  Now, where are those threads on bullying and management practices ...................... ?

I look forward to reading Wilt's essay on the GSCC and communication!

Does anyone think the council is right to be refusing to register Lisa Arthurworrey?

 

The Council is definitely wrong refusing to register Lisa. Not knowing much more details about her dealings with the Council is my main caveat. But on the whole, hers is a case that has gone through both internal and external channels. The external one, Lord Laming, cleared her for very good reasons. If such a respectable legal elite saw all the evidence and cleared Lisa, I would imagine GSCC would find no problem to register her. But if this thread is running, it is a prima facie evidence for me that they are not registering her just yet.

I have read concerns expressed above and questions about why Lisa would want to work as a social worker again anyway. I believe most people who work as social workers think about it as a vocation. But even more than this, everyone has the right to defend their reputation. If this is not possible because of whatever reason, people are entitled to try to salvage it. I think this is what Lisa is doing at the moment.

My fear for her though, is that a success in getting registered may not necessarily mean she will salvage her reputation. This is because potential employers in the area she wants to practice in will gang up on her and close ranks. She may never get a job but if she did she will be set up to fail. It would be nice if Lisa has access to these pages so that she could take a fresher look at her options. It would also be good for her to read threads, any thread at all, that deals with the GSCC.

Oh, just a little side issue. If anyone has been reading the Jersey case, they would remember the so-called whistleblower. Well there is a piece in the PSW (Professional Social Work) journal. I will be commenting on this in the thread dealing with BASW. Chances are that the whistleblower may have been referred already to the GSCC. So where does the current development leave him and all the rest of those who have been dismissed from their jobs since registration? 

Hi hallam

Are you referring to the SW who was working at the secure unit? I rad an article about that and it just goes to show you are told to cahllenge and not tolerate bad practice etc the nwhen you do "out" to disgraceful behaviour of others you are the person that gets sacked and shamed. Within days of that article ebing printed the Children's Services management team sent an email reminding SW on the procedures for complaints and what the consquences were of going to the press.

Yes, indeed. According to the latest PSW he has reached an out-of-tribunal settlement and he was supported through this by BASW's A&R services.

I also assume that people who demonstrate during interviews that they cannot put up with management who dump things on them because they know how to negotiate their caseloads hardly get the job. What do you think, Lins?

 

Hi Hallam

I am propably going to be very contraversial but I think you are right. I applied for a job and was asked about dealing conflict with managers and their decision making process and felt that my answered basically ruled me out of the job even with my experience. I have also unfortunately requested to have a change of manager as I felt that her practice was questionable and I know that some of the decisions she made were wrong. Following the request I had a new manager who basically treat me badly and I was left to feel that management were trying to get me out because I was trouble. This was backed up by my current job as when they received my reference my previous employer made reference to me be challenging. Thank goodness they took no notice and give me my job on my merits.      

Thats awful Lins. I commented on here bfore about being advised by a line manager to include false information in a case conference report. I refused on the basis it was fase and she made my life hell for ages afterwards. She had only met the childs mother on one occassion and clearly had another agenda. I was disgusted with her but Im glad i stuck to my principles and of course the law.

Looks like the Care Standards Tribunal is going to back Lisa A in this case and overturn the GSCC's decision to refuse registration.

We'll try and get you the full story as soon as we have it.