Gil Scott-Heron - B-Movie

Deregulated & Unaccountable: For-Profit Nursing Homes in Florida Face Sc...

voiceforchildren: Former Police Chief Statement to Wiltshire Constab...

To cut a long story short, Senator Le Marquand realised how un-sound/toxic the original suspension was, and decided to suspend the Chief Police Officer, not just once, but twice more. And, as they say, for the purposes of this posting, the rest is history.

In this posting we want to explain the truth behind the much misrepresented report by the Wiltshire Constabulary known as "Operation Haven 1." There is a myth commonly repeated by ill-informed onlookers/protectors of "The Jersey Way"/those with something to hide/people to protect that Haven 1 is an "independent" report and shows that; "the end justifies the means" in that despite the apparent lies told by Deputy Lewis for his "reasons" for suspending the chief Police Officer, Haven 1 shows it was the right decision.

More -
voiceforchildren: Former Police Chief Statement to Wiltshire Constab...:

Lewisham Council Failing Children. #Autism

From Community Care.

A council has been criticised for reducing the care and support packages of two brothers without telling their mother the reason for the decision.

The brothers, aged 10 and 11, both have autism and were receiving care packages from Lewisham council’s children’s services, which each included seven hours a week in short break payments, and 24 nights a year in respite accommodation.

The Local Government Ombudsman found that a social worker had reviewed the boys’ care without giving the mother a chance to comment, and had taken the report straight  to the council’s care package panel, which decided to reduce their care.

The panel decided that the younger boy did not need respite accommodation, and also cut his direct payments from seven hours a week to four. It also reduced the older boy’s respite stays from 24 nights to 12, the investigation found.

The ombudsman criticised the council for failing to give the mother a copy of the assessment, or the reasons for the changes to her sons’ care, and for its delay in taking her complaint through the statutory children’s complaint procedure.

He told the council to pay the woman £550 in recognition of the distress caused to her and said it should make the panel decision-making process more transparent.

The council has accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations.

‘No explanation’

The ombudsman’s investigation found that in early 2015, the council wrote to the mother to confirm the original care package for the younger boy.

However, a few months later, it contacted her again to say that the respite provider could not say when the boy would get this provision because of its waiting list.

In January 2016, a social worker from the council’s children with complex needs team undertook the review of both boys’ care. At the end of that month, she took the assessment to the care package panel, which is made up of managers from the service.

The ombudmsan investigation found that the social worker had failed to involve the mother in the assessment, or provide her with a copy to check. The social worker also gave “no explanation or reasons” for the panel’s decision to reduce the boys’ care.

“The failure to give reasons meant she [the mother] had no understanding of why the council wanted to change her sons’ care package,” the ombudsman’s report said.

“This caused frustration and a loss of confidence in the council.”

‘Incorrect procedure’

The mother complained to the council in February 2016.

The ombudsman found the council at fault for responding under its corporate complaints procedure, when it should have used the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

When the ombudsman challenged this, the council was slow to arrange for the complaint to go through the correct procedure, the report said, and it also failed to keep the mother updated on what was happening with her complaint.

The ombudsman also criticised the council for missing the statutory timescale for dealing with the complaint. The ombudsman found that it took eight months, from the council accepting it had used the wrong procedure in August 2016, for completing stage 2 of the process (the investigation). This should normally take 25 days working days (or up to 65, in exceptional circumstances).

The ombudsman’s report recommended that the council conduct a review of the operation of its procedures for identifying and dealing with complaints involving children and young people, to ensure it meet its statutory duties in the future.

It also said that the council should make the care package panel decision-making process more transparent, by sharing assessments with all parties before the panel meets, and ensuring that the panel gives written reasons for its decisions.

‘No input in review’

Michael King, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “In this case, the children’s situation had not changed, but Lewisham council reduced the level of care it provided. The mother has been left upset about not knowing why their support was reduced, or having any kind of input in its review.”

He added that councils “should know by now” how to identify a children’s services complaint and use the correct process, which has been in place for over 10 years.

A Lewisham council spokesperson said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings and we are acting on the recommendations and have apologised.

“We have already reviewed our processes and procedures that are in place to ensure this situation doesn’t happen again.”

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/09/08/council-criticised-cutting-care-packages-two-brothers-explanation/

Liverpool Council accused of snooping after "intercepting" emails between resident and councillor.

From the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool council has been accused of “intercepting” emails between a resident and an elected councillor.

Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Makinson received an email from community campaigner and former councillor Josie Mullen, but not before it has been seen and added to by a council officer.
Cllr Makinson has described the move as “extremely disturbing” and said everyone should be entitled to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without “council snoopers” looking over their shoulder.

But the city council said it has been forced to treat Ms Mullen’s contact with the authority in a specific way because of her “scattergun” approach to raising concerns.

Ms Mullen – a former Liberal Democrat councillor who has also campaigned for the Green Party – had contacted Cllr Makinson with emails that raised concerns about developments in the city – including the failed New Chinatown project – as well as questioning the actions of the council’s building control teams.

But this email did not go directly to Cllr Makinson – instead being diverted to the council’s customer feedback team manager, Andrea McGuire, who works in the chief executive’s office.

Read More

• Rotherham grooming report NOT given information on Ged Fitzgerald probe by Liverpool chiefs

This was then forwarded to Cllr Makinson with additional comments from Ms McGuire, who attempted to address the concerns raised.

The email explains: “Please find attached correspondence, which has been sent to you by Josie Mullen.

“Ms Mullen’s contacts with the council are being dealt with under the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy and her emails are on a divert to my team.”

Josie Mullen from Childwall, protesting against the sale of Sefton Park Meadows. (Image: Liverpool Echo)

The email ends by stating: “In line with Ms Mullen’s vexatious status with the Council, we would not expect you to respond to Ms Mullen, although ultimately that is a matter for you to decide.”

Cllr Makinson was outraged at the interception of an email sent directly to him.

He said: “It’s extremely disturbing that the council are now preventing councillors from receiving information from potential whistleblowers.

“Everyone should have a right to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without council snoopers looking over their shoulder.”

He added: “We’re constantly told by Labour that the council has no money to provide basic services, but they can waste money employing a team to intercept messages and then tell councillors what to think about them. No wonder people worry about the state of democracy in Liverpool.”

Read More

• Liverpool council boss criticised for failures during Rotherham grooming scandal

Responding, a spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Liverpool City Council is committed to dealing with all customers fairly and impartially. We do not normally limit the contact customers have with us, however in a small number of cases, customers pursue their concerns in a way that is unacceptable or unreasonable, which is when we apply the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour policy.

“Under the policy – which is never used lightly – we do not stop anyone from contacting the Council or from accessing services, although we may apply restrictions to the way in which they do this.”

He added: “In Ms Mullen’s case, she was advised to use a single point of contact.

“Ms Mullen ignored this advice and adopted what we consider to be a ‘scattergun approach’ where she raised the same concerns via multiple routes.

“In light of this, the council took a decision to divert all emails from Ms Mullen to the single point of contact mailbox.”

Ms Mullen – who said she is considering legal action over her treatment by the council – denies that her complaints have been vexatious or repetitive.

Read More

• Special meeting called to decide fate of arrested council chief Ged Fitzgerald

She said: “If you look at my Freedom of Information requests – every single one is different.

“I have sent countless emails to Ged Fitzgerald and the council about the failure to respond to these requests.

“None of these messages are abusive or obsessive and I will be taking my case to a solicitor.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-accused-snooping-after-13587923

Gwynedd - Why Does Nothing Work ?

It is well documented that there has been a problem with abuse in North Wales...for decades.

More here on the more infamous - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

Too many reports highlighted systemic failings within Clywd and Gwynedd Councils and the North Wales Police.
 
Shedloads of apologies were given and guarantees of change by the heads of every organisation.

Ssshh dont tell...
Though if memory serves me the only person sacked was the whistleblower social worker, Alison Taylor, by Gwynedd council. #Shameful

Then came the arrest and jailing of the North Wales Police Superintendent, Gordon Anglesea.

from wikipedia - 
On 4 November 2016, former police superintendent Gordon Anglesea was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the sexual abuse of a 14 and 15-year-old boy, with one of the victims being a resident of the Bryn Estyn care home.^[66] Anglesea had faced media allegations of involvement in sexual abuse at the home since the early 1990s, and had successfully sued four media organisations for libel in 1994, winning £375,000.^[67] Anglesea died on 15 December 2016, while serving his sentence at HM Prison Rye Hill.^[68]

More apologies were shovelled into the 'mea culpa' bag.

Then I was reminded of a complaint of abuse being made in 2014 to the police but it was not treated properly and the person was basically patted on the head and told to go away and have a think...

It was not csa but it was still the reporting of abuse to the authorities and ignored.

Then I hear of someone who has just raised an issue of abuse and within 36 hours the police phone the abuser to inform them !!!!!

#WTF

Rotherham grooming report NOT given information on Ged Fitzgerald probe by Liverpool chiefs.

First reported on the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool council failed to provide to Rotherham investigators any findings of an ‘investigation’ it said it had held into chief executive Ged Fitzgerald’s involvement in the town’s child sex exploitation scandal.
The report published today by lawyers acting for the South Yorkshire authority said that “it had not been provided with any details of the evidence considered or conclusions reached” by Liverpool’s probe.
Despite this comment – Liverpool Council insists it did communicate with the author’s of today’s Rotherham report.

While the Rotherham report authors said they did not want to “make comment as to the adequacy or robustness of those processes or their findings”, the ECHO can reveal that the ‘investigation’ carried out by Liverpool council was in fact a meeting Mr Fitzgerald was invited to attend on a voluntary basis, which took no evidence from anyone other than him.

Mr Fitzgerald was chief executive of Rotherham Council between 2001-2003 and today’s report criticised him for “missing opportunities” to deal with grooming in the town, although did not suggest disciplinary action against him.
In a Freedom of Information (FOI) response to questions from the ECHO, the council stated that the “chief executive responded openly and fully to all issues as part of a clear and transparent process”.

Read More

• Liverpool council boss criticised for failures during Rotherham grooming scandal

No-one but Mr Fitzgerald was asked to give any evidence.

Opposition leaders today questioned whether that process could legitimately be called an investigation at all, and the council’s response to the ECHO’s FOI request about the meeting makes no reference to it being an “investigation”.

The Liverpool Council meeting was called in 2014 after Professor Alexis Jay’s explosive report revealed that 1400 children had been the victims of abuse and grooming in the town between 1997 and 2013.

A response by Liverpool council to a Freedom of Information request from the ECHO stated that on September 17 2014, arrangements were made for the chief executive to meet with Mayor Joe Anderson and opposition group leaders to answer any questions they may have had.

Ged Fitzgerald

The meeting then took place on November 5 2014 and was entered into “voluntarily” by Mr Fitzgerald.
As well as the Mayor and group leaders at the time, there was an independent chair present in Sir Howard Newby, who was vice chancellor of the University of Liverpool at the time.
The council confirmed that aside from Sir Howard, there was no external body involved in the process.

Read More

• Special meeting called to decide fate of arrested council chief Ged Fitzgerald

The response stated: “The Chief Executive answered all questions which were put to him by those present at the meeting and also those questions put forward by other councillors who had availed themselves of the opportunity to do so.”
The council response states that Mayor Anderson reported back to the city council meeting on November 12 and stated that “the Chief executive responded openly and fully to all issues as part of a clear and transparent process.”

But Liverpool Lib Dem leader Richard Kemp – who refused to attend the 2014 meeting, criticised the council and Mayor Anderson for the manner of the investigation.

He said: “Instead of trying to deal authoritatively with the evidence he (Mayor Anderson) invited the Group Leaders to attend a private meeting with Mr Fitzgerald at which questions could be asked. This discussion appears to have been later referred to as an ‘investigation.’”

“The council has shown no indication it is remotely interested in holding the chief executive to account.”
He added: “The Council needs to address the issues of the Rotherham report.”

Read More

• How much will Liverpool council chief Ged Fitzgerald have earned by his next bail date?

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Following publication of Professor Alexis Jay’s 2014 report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, Mayor Anderson established an independent process chaired by the then Vice Chancellor of Liverpool University, Sir Howard Newby, where group leaders were invited to discuss the issues arising from the reports directly with Ged Fitzgerald.
“In addition, all other members of the council were invited to ask questions of Mr. Fitzgerald.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/rotherham-grooming-report-not-given-13583192

‘No culprits’ over Rotherham child abuse files stolen from council office.

First reported by the Yorkshire Post.

Files relating to a Home Office researcher’s attempts to investigate street grooming of children in the town by gangs of paedophiles were stolen from a locked council office – but no culprits can be identified, investigators have concluded.

An investigation was ordered into the theft of files after evidence about the incident was given to MPs by the researcher in 2014 in which she said an unknown individual had gained access to her office in the Risky Business youth project and removed all the data relating to her work with the Home Office in 2002.

Her computer records were also “impaired” in the incident.

The report found: “There is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence to support an assertion that an incident occurred involving the removal of files and/or impairment of computer records belonging to the former researcher.

“On the basis of our investigation and taking into account the circumstantial evidence available, our conclusion is that on the balance of probability it is likely files were removed from the Risky Business Office and computer records impaired.”

But the report added: “We have no information about who might have been the culprit(s), if files were removed and/or computer records impaired. We have found no evidence that would suggest any council officers referred to in this report were involved in the alleged incident.

“The work of Risky Business was gaining profile in 2002 and with what is known now about the exploitation of children, there might well have been strong motivation for individuals to prevent the information held in Risky Business files from being reported to statutory agencies.”

The report said the allegation had been first raised in 2002 as part of a grievance procedure but the grievance was withdrawn and the allegation not followed up.

Council officers interviewed as part of the new investigation “denied any knowledge of the alleged incident”.

The report added: “The council missed an opportunity to confirm at the time whether any removal of documents and/or impairment of computer files had occurred or not. In view of the significance of the matter, the council’s procedures should have led the council to look at the matter outside of the grievance.

Not least, there should have been recognition of the potential loss of data, reportable under the Data Protection Act.”

 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/no-culprits-over-rotherham-child-abuse-files-stolen-from-council-office-1-8740898

What do you want from life? (The Tubes)

Council accused of failing children with autism #Sheffield #Autism

---

Image copyright BBC/sparkle sheffield

Image caption Sparkle Sheffield's campaign includes a video called Stop the Abuse

A council accused of failing disabled children in order to save money has admitted it has made mistakes. 

Campaigners said children with autism and other special educational needs (SEN) are suffering from a lack of support in the classroom. 

Children's charity Sparkle said Sheffield City Council is obstructing parents' efforts to find suitable schools for their children. 

The council said it "truly regrets" its mistakes.

SEN reforms in 2014 saw the introduction of education, health and care (EHC) plans which are legally-binding agreements local authorities must abide by, but which cost them money.

Sparkle, which supports children with autism and their families, said by delaying EHC plans, children are are not being allocated schools in time or are sent to educational settings which do not meet their needs.

The group, which has been running a campaign called "Stop The Abuse", said this causes stress and anxiety, sometimes leads to self-harm and is in effect "abuse". 

Liesje Dusauzay from Sparkle said: "Our children are being left to suffer extreme distress in unsuitable environments without the support they desperately need. 

"This is destroying children's lives and their families lives." 

Sheffield City Council said in a statement: "We are continuing to work hard to bring about improvements in assessing, supporting and implementing the right provision for children. 

"We recognise we have not got this right in the past, and despite improvements we still do not always get it right currently. We truly regret this." 

But solicitor Hayley Mason, who advises parents taking legal action against local authorities, claimed councils around the country are withholding information from parents in order to save money.

She added: "They can save their sorries for themselves quite frankly, because it does parents no good." 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41098051