Confusion at Climbie inquiry over NSPCC evidence

There was further confusion at the Victoria Climbie inquiry last
week when it was revealed that late submissions by the NSPCC
included two different “original“ versions of a photocopy
relating to Victoria’s case directing different courses of
action, writes Lauren Revans.

Although both documents were dated August 23 1999, one
stipulated “no further action” while the other stated “accepted for
on-going service”. The photocopy initially submitted also stated
“accepted for on-going service”.

The NSPCC was responsible for the management of the Tottenham
Children and Family centre to which Victoria’s case was
referred on August 5 1999. The centre was a partnership between
Haringey council, Haringey Health Authority, and the
children’s charity.

Lord Laming, the Victoria Climbie inquiry chairperson, promised
last week to take allegations that the NSPCC had interfered with
its evidence to the inquiry “very seriously”.

* Meanwhile, the NSPCC employee suspended for sending a
“confidential” e-mail to Community Care has been sacked
for gross misconduct.

Social worker John Power, who was also a union representative
for the British Union of Social Work Employees, was suspended in
November 2001 on charges of breaching the trust and confidence of
the NSPCC for forwarding the contents of an intranet chat site
regarding redundancies.

At Power’s hearing last week, the NSPCC argued that it
owned the information on the chat site, and that the chat site did
not have the “tick logo” for public disclosure, and was therefore
considered confidential internal information.

Power told the hearing that he had been acting in the best
interests of others in his capacity of union representative, and in
the light of the charity’s consistent denial of the
widespread disillusionment within the society. He said his intent
was not to harm the NSPCC, but to share concerns over
realignment.