Southwark Council have recently released one 100+ page Report into
Hollyshaws House, and some relevant minutes but say that they have been
unable to locate another report.
Released are
1986 Oct 24 London Borough of Southwark Minutes of Social Services Meeting [1c]
1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and limited other aspects of Southwark SS] wdtk [1d] wordpress [17]
Not released was another report, which was, I think, the one rewritten as a cover up by John Briggs, Social Services Director.
Hollyshaws House was a childrens home for about 16 children near
Tunbridge, Kent but was run by Southwark Council. It was shut in Nov
1984
The Freedom of Information Request is here [1a]
Later in this post are
1986 Oct 24 London Borough of Southwark Minutes of Social Services Meeting [1c]
First 5 pages of the 1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and other aspects of Southwark SS] [1d] or on wordpress [17]
Times article [14] 1985 May 9 Times Nicholas Timmins Children in care “had sex”
Times article [15] 1985 Jun 17 Times Richard Evans Nick Timmins DHSS to investigate “mismanagement” at council homes
Southwark
I do not have time to do an in depth article on Southwark or even on Hollyshaw House.
Survivors, whistleblowers and others need to come together to form a Southwark Survivors group
Find other survivors, whistleblowers, social workers, ancillary workers etc
Help support each other and find healing
Help each other get legal help if necessary
Apply for own social care records (Subject access request under Data Protection Act)
Tell their own stories and record that in some form
Read and become familiar with all the information that is published,
and arrange it in a timeline, so that things become clearer as to what
happened and when
Apply for more information uner FOI that is signposted in the available information
Cross reference above information with how the authorities were meant to treat you by their own rules
Write a report or get a report written
During this process the authorities will start to have to take notice
of you, but it will only be by having strength together that action
will occur.
Survivors in other areas are further ahead in the process
Shirley Oaks, Lambeth have and they have already produced one report, see summary, Looking for a Place Called Home – Report of Shirley Oaks Survivors[16] and a website Shirley Oaks Survivors Association [11]
Islington survivors have a website, Islington Survivors Network [10]
Information is available about Southwark and child abuse from
Spotlight on Abuse Category Southwark[4] Newspaper articles
Operation Greenlight Southwark – written section [9]
Operation Greenlight Hollyshaw House – the brain [5]
Operation Greenlight Southwark – the brain [6] Cathy Fox Southwark[8]
Other sources not mentioned could be Local Libraries, National
Archives, British Museum, Council, specialised newspaper archives,
Hansard, House of Commons and house fo Lords Libraries, Social Services
Inspectorate
Please feel free to comment below this post. Some peopel also wich to contact others about Hollyshaw or S0uthwark.
Can anyone develop an app for survivors to meet fellow survivors? 1986 Jul London Borough of Southwark Report of an Independent Inquiry [into Hollyshaw House and limited other aspects of Southwark SS] [1d]
Chair – Timothy RGF Ryland (Barrister)
Admin – Geoffrey S Dunn (ex Director of Social Services)
Brian Blackler (Solicitor)
The first 5 pages are here and the rest of the hundred odd pages are here on a pdf download [1d]
I have not had time to read the whole report properly and any summary would be gratefully received.
It is interesting to note that the terms of reference were changed
and it would be interesting to see what the original terms were.
It was certainly thought to be a cover up by the press as
the panel members not told about “child on child” sexual abuse that was known about
the main report was rewritten by (the by soon ex) Social Services Director John Briggs
It is not wholly clear to me whether this report is the rewritten one
or the original, and I will try and read more after publication of this
post, but may not have time, so so views welcome in comments.
It should also be noted that abusers in “child on child” sexual abuse
have often been sexually abused themselves. This is confirmed by the
Shirley Oaks Report [16] Redaction
The Report is redacted.
It appears overly redacted and many names that I judge should be in are redacted.
This is in line with an overcautious approach taken about the Data
Protection Act even in regard to officers of the council in an official
position and in reports already published and / or given to the media.
I have not yet seen any explanations of the redaction, which if so would be against the FOI act
The redactions are labelled so that at least it can be understood
which are the same individuals on each occasion. This should be done
under the FOI Act, but often is not
I would guess initially that John Briggs is A1
I have complained about the redaction after further study, see Appendix 1
The first 5 pages are here and the rest of the hundred odd pages are here on a pdf download [1d]
– Minutes of Meeting of Southwark Social Services Committee 24 Oct 1986
Councillors – Tony Goss (Chair) Marjorie Henriques, Anne Matthews,
Pat Morgan, Linda Oram, Tony Ritchie, Winston Stafford, Pat Sullivan,
Andy Troke
Other -Peter Coast, Fred Haynes, Staffside reps
It appears that a working party was set up of 3 councillors, that was
to report back in 8 week – that will be useful information to have — Times articles on Hollyshaw House, Southwark
These, I think have not published elsewhere recently [HT M] 1985 May 9 Times Nicholas Timmins Children in care “had sex” [14]
David Barnes, Social Services Director Southwark 1985 Jun 17 Times Richard Evans Nick Timmins DHSS to investigate “mismanagement” at council homes [15]
Read left column all the way down, then right column all the way down
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based. Appendix 1 Redaction
Redaction appears excessive, exemptions not explained, see oservations below that have been made to Southwark
Thank you for your response to my FOI (ref: 696842)Unfortunately I
cannot see any explanation of the redaction as required by the FOI Act.
The situation was complicated by the use of Egress switch
(The owners for the WDTK site had to access the files that you sent
by Egress switch as I could not do so, and they consider the use of this
method unhelpful see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s…. Please do not send any further answers by this method, if there is a technical problem please contact the site)
If you sent the reasons for redaction and explanations please could
you do so again, and if you did not please send them for the first time.
There appear to be no exemptions given for each redaction and it is
not clear what the difference between A B D etc is or what type of
person/body the letters differentiate between.
The ICO guidelines state
“Give an indication of how much text you have redacted and where from.
If possible, indicate which sections you removed using which exemption.
Provide as much meaningful information as possible. For example, when
redacting names you may still be able to give an indication of the
person’s role, or which pieces of correspondence came from the same
person.
As far as possible, ensure that what you provide makes sense. If you
have redacted so much that the document is unreadable, consider what
else you can do to make the information understandable and useful for
the requester.” https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui..
–
The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness[G] and Meditation[H] may be useful.
Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma[J]
Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring
change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together
We Can Heal” [N]
All That Is Solid ...: Abandoned Stoke: An interesting short from the comrades at WellRedFilms, just ignore the talking head saying things about the passing of Stoke's industry...
Previous blog posts ‘Service User Involvement in North Wales’ and ‘We
Control All The Outcomes’ describe how there is no effective or genuine
representation for ‘services users’ and carers in north Wales and
indeed never has been. If anyone at any time had ever ‘listened to’ a
service user or carer the ‘services’ would simply not be in this state.
For years, ‘service user involvement’ was left to completely ineffective
bodies like the ‘Independent Advocacy Service’ or the ‘Gwynedd and Ynys
Mon Users Forum’ (which were staffed and managed by people who were
terrified of the staff and managers of the lethal services whom they
were supposed to be holding to account), or Unllais (whom I knew were
refusing to make representation regarding the mental health services
even when they were being told of the most serious abuses). Until March
2016 Unllais held the contract for service user involvement in north
Wales. Considering how hopeless Unllais had been at representing and
involving service users, the ending of their contract would have been
the most wonderful opportunity for the Betsi to begin some real ‘service
user and carer involvement’. Readers will know that this never happened
and instead a new nightmare is promised, as the ‘contract’ was
subsequently given to CAIS/Hafal, who have now formed another vehicle,
CANIAD (please see blog post ‘Introducing Caniad!’).
So Dr Dafydd Alun
Jones and Lucille Hughes, who sit on the Board of Trustees of CAIS, are
now responsible for ‘service user involvement’ in north Wales. We can
assume that the outcome from this will therefore be truly grim. Many of
my previous blog posts describe the unethical and criminal behaviour of
Dafydd Alun Jones – and Lucille Hughes was named in the Waterhouse
Report as knowing that a paedophile ring was operating in Gwynedd Social
Services whilst she was the Director of these ‘Services’ but that she
was failing to act. Dafydd and Lucille are now in their eighties, they
have never protected the interests of service users and carers before
and I very much doubt that they are going to start now.
As soon as I heard that CAIS/Hafal had landed this ‘contract’ from
the Betsi, I was interested to find out exactly how this had happened,
particularly as there seems to massive conflicts of interest in many
other ‘contracts for services’ being handed out by the Betsi. Blog post
‘A Total Lack of Transparency’ details how the whole process has been
shrouded in secrecy.
So I recently put in a FoI request to Wrexham County Borough Council
(who were inexplicably allowed by the Betsi to ‘lead’ on this whole
travesty) in an attempt to find out exactly how CAIS had landed this
contract and the identities of the people involved. Last week I received
a reply from Wrexham Council which didn’t answer all my questions but
did provide a lot of enlightening information. Wrexham Council told me
that I wasn’t allowed to reproduce ‘copyrighted’ information without
permission and although I’ve written to them requesting this permission I
haven’t received a reply. So I cannot reproduce the wonderful
information that I have been provided with in it’s entirety, but I can
blog about the salient points within this information.
The first surprise that I got was how much this ‘contract’ was worth.
It was worth 1.5 million. That’s right, the Betsi have channelled 1.5
million quid to Dafydd et al for five years worth of ‘service user
involvement’. The Betsi are currently nearly bankrupting the Welsh Govt
so bad is their financial position. But CAIS have been given 1.5
million. The information given to me also confirmed that a grand total
of FOUR unidentified service users were ‘involved’ in this process. And I
bet they won’t see much of the 1.5 million that has been handed over –
indeed, I was sent a rather simplistic ‘presentation’ allegedly designed
by one of the ‘service users’ regarding what ‘involvement’ means to him
and he mentioned that he was able to claim his expenses. So he gets his
bus fare and the price of a lunchtime sandwich reimbursed and Dafydd et
al net 1.5 million.
The information provided told me that there were only two ‘bids’ put
in for the ‘tender’, one from Unllais and one from CAIS/Hafal. The fact
that ‘service user involvement’ was subject to a ‘tendering’ process
alone excludes nearly all service users and carers. How many patients
and carers are ever going to ‘bid for a contract’? How many even knew
that all this was happening? I didn’t and I actually try to keep aware
of what is going on in the mental health services in north Wales. But
people on the ‘professional’ networks will have known all about it,
because the information sent to me revealed that ‘from January 2014
onwards, the Health Board’s Commissioning Manager…attended all the Local
Planning Groups in North Wales’. Well you won’t find many service users
and carers in them, but ‘professionals’ know all about these planning
groups, who sits on them and when they hold their meetings. It was also
mentioned that the Commissioning Manager attended ‘Third Sector’
networks (CAIS is a Third Sector organisation) and Service User and
Carer networks. Now in a region that was not blighted by corruption and
criminal activity in the mental health services, the Commissioning
Manager attending Service User and Carer Networks would be a positive
sign. But in north Wales, most ‘service users’ experiences of the
‘services’ are so bad that when they finally wave goodbye to the
services (if indeed they ever manage to obtain a service in the first
place) they want no more to do with them. They do not join a ‘service
user network’. Furthermore, in my experience the ‘service user networks’
in north Wales have always been manipulated or indeed completely
controlled by the ‘services’ themselves or the lame third sector
organisations such as MIND who have for years colluded with the abuses
of the mental health services. And some of the service user groups are
run by CAIS. So it’s highly unlikely that any grassroots service user
and carer groups would have encountered the Commissioning Manager who
was allegedly publicising the commissioning process.
But what if north Wales happened to have a really enterprising group
of service users and carers who did know that a commissioning process
was happening and who were even prepared to form a group to bid for this
contract? Well the information provided to me suggests that they would
have found such bidding very difficult indeed. For a start, the
information regarding the bidding process and what needs to be done to
land the bid successfully is littered with acronyms with are never
explained. I have a PhD and a research background in social policy and
sociology in the Welsh context and I didn’t know what most of those
acronyms meant. But it gets worse. Even if a group of service users had
managed to plough through all this and somehow decipher it, at the ‘Meet
The Buyer Event’, in the ‘procurement information’, provided by Rachel
Glynn-Thomas (‘category manager’) there was a reference to a preference
for the bidders to make use of technology – specifically to submit the
bid via e procurement, ‘utilising the Bravo Solutions etenderWales
software hosted by the Welsh Government’. Well that will be familiar to
every service user and carer in Wales won’t it, they’ll use it daily.
Service users wanting to bid will have needed a good accountant as well,
because they had to complete one of the most taxing spreadsheets that
I’ve ever seen, worse even than the spreadsheets that I used to complete
when I wrote research bids for the research councils that fund academic
research (and I had the University accountant to help me). Now, even if
our hypothetical service user group did contain a social policy expert,
an accountant, someone who was familiar with procurement procedures
used by the Welsh Govt as well as someone who knew how to install and
use the specialised software used by the Welsh Govt for procurement,
there was something interesting about when the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’
was held. I don’t remember seeing it being advertised anywhere.
But if I
was someone who might have been looking out for an opportunity to bid
for a Welsh Government contract and was familiar with the procedure of
bidding for these contracts, I’d have been looking at the website
Sell2Wales. The contract was advertised on Sell2Wales – but not until
nearly a month after the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ had been held. So anyone
attending that ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ (the only opportunity to receive
information and ask questions) could have only known about it from an
inside contact.
The ‘Meet The Buyer’ event was held in the Boardroom of Optic St
Asaph, a location virtually impossible to get to by public transport –
so interested service users who did know about it will have needed their
own cars to get there. The people making up the panel at the ‘Meet The
Buyer’ event included Wyn Thomas (Assistant Director, Community
Partnership Development, BCUHB), Vicky Jones (Regional Substance Misuse
Commissioning and Development Manager), Jane Jones (Partnership Manager,
BCUHB), Rachel Glynn-Thomas (Category Manager, Wrexham Borough County
Council) and Sion ap Glynn (Business Support Wales). These are not the
sort of people that your average service user would know – but I bet
people from CAIS knew them, particularly as CAIS already provide
‘substance misuse services’ on behalf of the Betsi and thus work ‘in
partnership’ with them.
There were also two ‘service users’ on this panel, a David Holmes and
an Andrea Hughes – however at least one of the powerpoints supplied to
me allegedly presented by the ‘service users’ contained a number of
highly complex flow charts. I have yet to meet a service user who would
ever include such things in a presentation on ‘What Involvement Means To
Me’. These managerialist flow charts were also noticeably inconsistent
with the rest of the presentation material from the ‘service users’,
which pivoted around claiming expenses, supporting others, feeling like a
valuable human being, undertaking an entry level education course and
no longer being sectioned. I suspect that the managerialist flow charts
had been added to those presentations by someone else.
The information supplied to me also suggested that someone might have
been expecting a bid from CAIS/Hafal. The information is littered with
references to ‘substance misuse services’. Indeed mentions of ‘substance
misuse services’ were being prioritised – again and again they were
mentioned in the remit after ‘service user involvement’. But there are
other rather big clues as well. One slide sent to me in response to my
FoI request was a presentation by Jane Jones, Partnership Manager,
BCUHB. She certainly seems to gearing up for a partnership with
CAIS/Hafal – her presentation states that ‘we would welcome bids from a
consortia or partnership but partners must be clear about their
partnership arrangements before submitting an application’. No doubt
Jane Jones wanted to ensure that any such partnerships contained the
word ‘CAIS’ in their ‘arrangements’. The biggest clue however is
contained on the slide prepared by Rachel Glynn-Thomas regarding
‘procurement information’: ‘WCBC [Wrexham County Borough Council] on
behalf of the Six North Wales Authorities represented by the Area
Planning Board for Substance Misuse and with the Betsi Cadwaladr
University Health Board…’ So at the very heart of the ‘procurement
process’ was the Area Planning Board For Substance Misuse – who are
presumably the people who have already commissioned CAIS to provide
‘substance misuse services’ and know them well. Rachel’s slide mentions
the need to ensure ‘best value’ and that a marketised commissioning
process is the best way of achieving this – ah, so that’s how 1.5
million found its way into the pockets of Dafydd Alun Jones, Lucille
Hughes et al…
The dirty deed has now been done, the dosh has gone to CAIS/Hafal and
now Dafydd, Lucille and their mates are dictating what ‘service user
involvement’ in north Wales looks like. One of the slides sent to me
gives some ‘facts and figures’ regarding the region covered by the
Betsi. It mentions that there are 1,600 staff employed in the Mental
Health Division. So ‘service users’ who dare to complain are faced with
1,600 people sticking together like glue. (It’s tempting to suggest that
there are probably more staff employed in the Mental Health Division
than patients successfully obtaining a service.) And now they’ve got
CAIS to represent their interests against the 1,600 people.
Whilst reading through the information supplied to me in response to
my FoI request, any, many questions sprung to mind. But the biggest
question of all surely has to be that if CAIS have been given 1.5
million for five years worth of ‘service user involvement’ how much are
they raking in for providing all their other ‘services’? As Private Eye
would say, I think we should be told…
A
healthcare regulator has decided that a notorious benefits assessor
will not face any disciplinary action over allegations of dishonesty,
even though his former employer admitted that he lied in an assessment
report.
Paramedic
Alan Barham still faces being struck off for comments he made to an
undercover reporter while working for the government contractor Capita,
which were aired in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary last April.
But
the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), which is investigating
Barham’s actions, has decided that separate allegations that he lied in a
report he wrote after assessing a disabled woman’s eligibility for
personal independence payment (PIP) will not be dealt with by a
disciplinary hearing.
The
conclusions reached by the council will add to concerns that regulators
are failing to act when they receive complaints from disabled people
that healthcare professionals have written dishonest reports after
carrying out face-to-face PIP assessments.
Following
a two-month investigation, Disability News Service (DNS) has collected
scores of cases of disabled people who claim that PIP assessors like
Barham lied repeatedly in reports produced for the Department for Work
and Pensions.
Undercover footage from the Dispatches programme (pictured) showed Barham admitting that he sometimes completed his PIP assessment reports before even meeting the claimants.
He
also told an undercover reporter that he could usually “completely
dismiss” what he was told by PIP claimants, and made offensive comments
about an overweight claimant who was unable to carry out her own
personal care.
After
watching the programme, two disabled people who had been assessed by
Barham lodged complaints about his behaviour, based both on the
documentary and on reports that he had written following face-to-face
assessments of their entitlement to PIP.
An
HCPC investigating committee has now concluded that the comments Barham
made in the documentary are serious enough for him to be found guilty of
“misconduct and/or lack of competence” if a disciplinary panel finds
them proven.
But
the committee has also decided that allegations about the two PIP
assessments carried out by Barham – which were not part of the
documentary – are not serious enough to merit findings of misconduct
and/or lack of competence, even though Capita has already concluded that
Barham lied in one of the assessment reports.
The
committee concluded that the allegations concerning lying and other
failings in assessments “could be considered to fall short of the
expected standards of a Paramedic” but “do not, in the Panel’s view,
constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence”.
David
Nicholls, from Northampton, the husband of one of the PIP claimants,
has told DNS of his anger and frustration at the way HCPC has dealt with
the case.
DNS
has seen Capita’s response to his complaint about the assessment report
Barham wrote following an assessment of his wife, Jacqueline, in March
last year, a month before the Dispatches documentary was screened.
As a result of the assessment, she was found ineligible for PIP.
It
was only after the documentary was aired and DWP agreed to allow her to
be reassessed that she was granted the enhanced rate for both the daily
living and mobility components of PIP.
In
the response to the Nicholls complaint about Barham, a Capita senior
complaint handler wrote: “You stated that you disagree with the content
of your assessment report and that you believe [Barham] had made
inaccurate assumptions and had lied in his report…
“Based on the outcome of my investigation, I uphold this element of your complaint.”
In
his report, Barham repeatedly stated that what he was told by Jacqueline
Nicholls was not backed up by the tests he carried out during the
assessment.
But
David Nicholls said Barham had ignored the impact of his wife’s brain
injury on both her physical and mental functioning, including her
seizures, her confusion when asked too many questions, the lack of
feeling in parts of her body, her memory problems, and her tendency to
get lost when on her own.
Barham
reported instead that she could plan and follow routes, understand
complex written information without any help, and make her own budgeting
decisions.
Nicholls said: “He has misled people with the findings in his report in the worst possible way.
“His assessment gave no consideration to brain injury at all. Jacquie could not take it in.”
He said that the effect of dishonest assessors like Barham on disabled people was “devastating”.
He
said he was “very upset” by the HCPC decision, which he said showed that
it was “letting down any person who feels they have been badly treated
or assessed.
“It
sends out the message that no matter what your assessor does or says,
they will get away with it. They will be protected and never seen to be
at fault.”
An
HCPC spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that complaints against Alan
Barham are currently being investigated through our fitness to practice
process and an allegation pertaining to these matters has been referred
to the conduct and competence committee.
“However,
due to the ongoing nature of the investigation and our duty of
confidentiality to all parties involved it would be inappropriate for us
to comment any further at this stage.
“Once
the matter is listed for final hearing the full details of the public
allegation will be published on our website four weeks prior to the
hearing date.”
She
later added: “I can confirm to you that [the Dispatches claims]are the
only allegations going forward to the final hearing, they are now the
only two allegations in the public domain.
“Essentially, this means [the allegations concerning the two PIP assessments]will not be further considered.
“However
as this is a private document stemming from an independent panel
decision we cannot provide any further comment on the reasoning behind
this.”
DNS has approached Barham for a comment, but he had not replied by noon today (Thursday).
Alan Barham can be contacted via his website - http://www.firstaidplustraining.co.uk/ His phone number is - 01536 656 998 Alan also promotes Event Paramedics on his website as he suggests he works with them. Their website and contact details are - http://www.eventparamedics.co.uk/our-staff.php
Freedom of Information request to Gwynedd Council.
Mr Creathorne 1 December 2016
Delivered
Dear Gwynedd council
As GCC print their own summonses , please identify the current Clerks to
the justices signature that you use the facsimile of. Please also name
all the Clerks to the justices of the last five years.
Please also provide a correspondence address for the current Clerks to the justices.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Creathorne
Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 5 December 2016
Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)
Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your request has been passed to me to process and I can confirm that it has been logged under the reference number T1739.
The Council may take up to 20 working days, from the date of receipt,
to respond to your request. You should therefore receive the
information you have requested, subject to the application of any
exemptions permitted under the Act, by 02/01/2017 .
If you require further information please contact me by phone on or
by emailing [Gwynedd Council request email] by quoting the reference
number above.
Yours sincerely,
Wena Green
————————————————————-
Owen Gwawr (CG), 3 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)
We refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act in respect
to the above.
Having reviewed your request for information, we have identified that Llys
Ynadon, Llandudno could respond more appropriately. We would therefore
suggest that you contact them at the address given below in order to
receive the relevant information:
Clerk To The Justices
Magistrates Court
Conway Road
LLANDUDNO
LL30 1GA
If you have any further queries regarding this letter please contact me as
the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator. Please remember to quote the
reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely,
Gwawr Owen
————————————————————-
Mr Creathorne 3 January 2017
Delivered
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
This response is unacceptable Since you are using the facsimile of a
Clerk to the Justices signature then GCC must know who this is. Please
now answer the question without further delay.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Owen Gwawr (CG), 5 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
The Information is signed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, being
the Proper Officer, in order to authorise the commencement of
proceeding. The Summons and Information is thereafter passed to the
Clerk to the Justices for approval. The Clerk to the Justices do not
sign the Summons and no facsimile of the Clerk’s signature is used by
the Council. Under previous arrangements the Council would forward the
Information and Summons to the Clerk to the Justices who would sign and
return the summons to the Council. The new arrangement have been in
place for the past 12 months.
As the Council adhere’ s to the Courts requirements, if you have any
questions as to this please refer enquiries to Magistrates Court
Service, Llandudno
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Adamna left an annotation (12 January 2017)
Courts have no records of individual summons or liability orders.
Neither is now produced by the courts, but by the council. Nobody is
taking responsibility for the court’s part in the process. We are left
with only the council’s assurance that the court has, in some vague way,
been involved. This is unacceptable and cannot be regarded as a
legitimate court process.
Mr Creathorne 15 January 2017
Delivered
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
You have not answered the question.
The summonses that are issued by the council ( they are printed and sent
from council office) clearly show a facsimile signature of what is
purported to be the Clerk to the Justices. Who is this person , how long
has this person held the position and what is the individuals contact
address. As the council are using this information on their own
summonses it is ludicrous to suggest that you know nothing of it.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Owen Gwawr (CG), 15 January 2017
Rwyf allan o’r swyddfa tan Dydd Llun 16/01/2017. A fyddech cystal â
anfon unrhyw ymateb/ymholiad i gais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i’r mailbox
[email address] os gwelwch yn dda . I’m currently out of office until
Monday 16/01/2017 . Please could you forward any response/enquiry to
Freedom of Information Requests to the mailbox [Gwynedd Council request
email] Thank You
————————————————————-
Owen Gwawr (CG), 23 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
As previously advised, under current arrangements the Council do not use a facsimile of the Clerk to the Justices’ signature.
So as to assist us in answering your request, please provide a
specimen copy of a summons from this Council which you maintain contains
a facsimile signature of the Clerk to the Justices.
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections
Mr Creathorne 29 January 2017
Delivered
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
You may be aware that I cannot upload a document to this site. Please
therefore provide me with your email address so that I may forward the
document in question so that I can provide the evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 30 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
Please see email address below.
[email address].cymru
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections
Mr Creathorne 11 February 2017
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
You were provided with the document showing the facsimile signature of
the Clerk to the Justices some time ago. Please provide the answers to
original questions by return.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Owen Gwawr (CG), 11 February 2017
Woodlands Care Home, Mirfield,Huddersfield,Ian.
Speciality Care Limited, ( REIT Homes )
Responsible Person Maureen Royston.
This home is under the general banner of Four Seasons.
This is Maureen Claire Royston,MD,etc. Big figure at FSHC.
Link thanks to Karl Womack.
Home rated as inadequate and placed in special measures, latest CQC
Inspection Report Inadequate in Three Key Areas,Requiring Improvement in
two more. Fourth consecutive non compliant inspection report. Six out
of nine inspection reports non compliant. No new admissions.
Just another failing care home in a high incidence area. Been going on since 2002 around, Huddersfield, Halifax,Kirklees.
Nothing improves, or if it does not for long.
Patient records were falsified and staff used derogatory language at a failing Mirfield care home.
Woodlands Care Home in Sands Lane has been placed in special measures after being rated ‘inadequate’ by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The
home, to 55 people during the inspection in December, was given the
lowest rating for its safety, management and its compassion towards
patients.
It was given amber ‘requires improvement’ ratings by the government health watchdog for effectiveness and responsiveness.
The
report said: “Although some staff treated people with kindness and
compassion, showing respect for their privacy and dignity, other staff
did not.
“Some staff used derogatory terms and spoke over people to each other.
“Some staff failed to recognise when people’s dignity was being compromised.”
The report noted other safety and dignity issues.
It said: “People were not always provided with safe care and treatment.
“Some
people were not assisted to move regularly and some people did not
receive adequate assistance to meet their continence needs.” CQC inspectors found that residents’ care records were incomplete – and some had been ‘falsified.’
The
report said: “Some care records were inaccurate and incomplete and, in
some cases, records were falsified. Audits were not robust and did not
identify some areas for improvement.”
Woodlands Care Home, Sandy Lane, Mirfield CQC inspectors discovered that admissions to one of the home’s four units had been suspended.
The
report said: “Admissions to ‘Thornhill’ had been suspended by the local
authority due to safeguarding concerns on this unit in relation to
staffing, the role of one to one staff and the management of medicines.”
The CQC raised concerns about staffing shortages at the home.
The
report said: “Despite a dependency tool being used to help determine
staff numbers, there were not always sufficient numbers of staff to meet
people’s needs.”
A spokesperson for Woodlands Care Home said: “The wellbeing
of people entrusted to our care is our priority and we are sorry that
Woodlands Care Home has fallen below the standards that we expect all of
our homes to provide.
“We are implementing a comprehensive
programme of improvements that is being overseen by our home manager
supported by the regional senior management team working in close
liaison with Kirklees Council and the Care Quality Commission.
“We have also held meetings with residents and relatives to tell them about the improvement programme.
“Before the inspection we had already identified areas where we needed to improve.”
Tthe man who tried to expose historical sex abuse at the notorious
Kincora boys' home in Belfast in the 1970s has criticised a major
inquiry after it redacted part of his evidence.
Former Army captain and intelligence officer Colin Wallace, whose
attempts to blow the whistle on the abuse of the young boys were
thwarted by superiors, said the censored information undermines the
Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry (HIA).
He refused to testify before it last year, because he said it did not
have adequate powers to get answers. Instead, Mr Wallace submitted a
45-page document about Kincora.
However, two sections were redacted - blacked out - before the
material was placed on the HIA website. The redacted information,
published by Lobster Magazine, includes details about senior figures
from public life.
Mr Wallace said it was "strange and disappointing" that important information was kept out of the inquiry and from the public.
"This report has illustrated the weaknesses of the system, because
there are lost files and material that I had in 1973 that they haven't
found and the stuff that we did give has been excluded," he said.
"I feel for the victims, because this is very unsatisfactory."
Some of the concealed information centred around Sir Knox Cunningham,
a former parliamentary secretary to former Prime Minister Harold
Macmillan.
The barrister from Northern Ireland was also an Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim.
It details how there were clear links between Knox Cunningham and
William McGrath, a notorious paedophile, who was jailed for child abuse
at Kincora.
Colin Wallace
Part of the redacted information had already been published in the book Let The Petals Fall, by Robin Bryans.
It revealed how Cunningham was a close friend of Belfast painter
Sidney Smith, who was one of a group of paedophiles on both sides of the
border.
"Knox never hesitated to flex his legal muscles for illegal purposes as a Queen's Counsel," the book claims.
"Knox could also cite chapter and verse about Sidney Smith's similar
immunity from prosecution over his years of sex with unconsenting
children as young as three years."
Mr Wallace said that although the sexual abuse allegations relating
to Sidney Smith pre-date the Kincora sexual abuse allegations, the links
between McGrath, Cunningham and others make them relevant to the HIA
Inquiry.
"There are important witnesses that were never approached by the
inquiry and having taken part in the Saville inquiry I was amazed the
HIA was relying on the unsigned statements people had given back in
1982," he said.
"That's not acceptable.
"Knox Cunningham did have connections to John McKeague who had links
to Kincora and Peter Montgomery (the gay lover of Russian spy Sir
Anthony Blunt). The intelligence service must have been keeping a close
eye on them.
"What I find odd is that information that has been published in one inquiry has later been redacted by the HIA.
"The illogical nature of what the HIA has done is something I find hard to understand.
"I don't think that account fitted the HIA view, so they left it out. This undermines the work of the HIA inquiry.
"The inquiry has not helped victims because it has left so many things up in the air.
"Victims have been waiting for the HIA to answer their questions and
they have not answered their questions - it has raised more questions.
The HIA is not the full story."
A spokeswoman for the HIA inquiry said: "The inquiry only redacted
material that related to national security, protected the identity of
those whose safety might be at risk, or had no relevance to the work of
the inquiry. The inquiry does not intend to comment on the reasons for
specific redactions."
The
outsourcing company Capita offered freelance social workers financial
bonuses – and put them up in luxury hotels – to encourage them to help a
local authority cut disabled and older people’s care packages.
A
whistleblower has told Disability News Service (DNS) that Capita has
been piling pressure on its team of social workers – while paying them
more than £1,000 a week – to cut social care spending, on the orders of
Southampton City Council.
DNS revealed last September
that the council had employed Capita to clear a backlog of annual
reviews of the care packages of disabled and older people, in an
apparent attempt to cut costs.
But
DNS has now seen an email in which a Capita manager told her team
members that they could earn a bonus of £200 if they increased the cuts
to people’s care packages they achieved through those reviews by 20 per
cent.
In
the email, headed “Stop Press – Good News”, she passed on an offer from a
senior manager at Capita, who suggested an “extra incentive” for her
team if they could improve on their previous “performance”.
He suggested that the bonus “can be measured across both productivity levels and the savings achieved.
“If one person improves their productivity by 20 per cent and savings by 20 per cent they receive a £400 bonus.”
The whistleblower, Rebecca*, said she has been earning more than £1,000 a week – after tax – as part of the Capita team.
She
said her bosses made it clear that team members would only keep their
jobs if they produced enough cuts to the packages of the people whose
care needs they were assessing.
Capita said this week that it did not “recognise” Rebecca’s claims, although it has not denied any of her specific claims.
But
when it was later shown the “extra incentive” email, a Capita spokesman
appeared to accept that it was genuine and claimed the incentive
mentioned was “never introduced”, and that the company would not be
“updating” its original statement.
Southampton
City Council said the Capita project was part of its plan to
“transform” adult social care in the city, and claimed that the emphasis
was not on cost-cutting but on “carrying out a thorough review,
supporting people to take up alternatives such as enhanced telecare and
direct payments, if appropriate”.
It had not commented on the “extra incentive” email by 11am today (Thursday).
The
council’s link-up with Capita was first trialled through a pilot
project, which resulted in an average cut of seven per cent to disabled
people’s support packages.
That pilot project has now finished, and Capita is being paid by the council to continue the work.
Disabled
people in Southampton with continuing healthcare funding from the NHS
have already seen their local clinical commissioning group (CCG) attempt to push them into institutions,
by arguing that the needs of disabled people who need more than eight
hours of long-term healthcare a day “would be more appropriately met
within a residential placement”.
The
city council has also been forced to scrap plans to review the packages
of disabled people with high-cost support packages and try to force
them out of their own homes and into residential and nursing
institutions.
Now
Rebecca, one of the freelance social workers who has been working on
the Southampton project for Capita, has contacted DNS to describe the
pressure she and her colleagues have been put under to cut people’s care
packages during the day, while being put up in luxury, three-star
hotels at night.
DNS
has seen another email sent by a manager from the “Capita review team”
late last year, complaining that their latest results showed that the
cuts to care packages they had managed to find had “fallen
dramatically”.
The
manager adds in the email: “The senior managers [from the council]who
are leading this transformation want to know why it appears we are
failing to realise the results in service delivery and savings they
anticipated by commissioning this project.
“They in turn are being asked to explain to Councillors of SCC [Southampton City Council].”
The
manager then adds in the email: “I have stressed how hard you are all
working – but we don’t appear to be getting the results we had during
the Pilots.”
And she warns her team: “We don’t have very much time to turn this situation around.
“If we can’t/don’t do it all the hard work you have put in so far will have been for nothing.
“Not to put too fine a point on things WE ARE ALL ON THE WAY HOME.”
Capita’s freelance social workers stayed at plush three-star hotels such as the Bartley Lodge, the city’s Jury’s Inn hotel and the New Place (pictured), while they were being paid more than £1,000 a week to cut disabled people’s support to live independently.
Rebecca
told DNS: “Capita know nothing about social care. They don’t care about
social care. They only care about delivering or being seen to deliver
the savings.
“You
had to go hell for leather to produce these savings. A council manager
told us: ‘You have to continue with this because there is no plan B.'”
But Rebecca said the project was “so badly monitored and managed that I suspect a lot of the team had never had it so easy.
“We
often remarked it was one of the easiest social work jobs we had ever
had and the pressure only came from them wanting savings where under
social work values and ethics we were loathe to make those cuts.”
When
she was interviewed for the job, she said, the questions focused on
whether she would be happy to cut people’s care packages if needed.
She said: “I said if the care needs are not there, then yes. If they are there, then no.
“Many
of the social workers have been sacked by Capita along the way because
they weren’t making the savings, they weren’t cutting the cost of care.”
And
she said that the service-users with no support networks to advocate on
their behalf with the council were often the ones who were having their
packages cut.
Rebecca said: “There was a huge emphasis on making savings.
“There were constant ‘thinly veiled threats’ that we must make savings.
“You
were threatened with a glare or a glower if you questioned them, or if
you reminded them of the correct processes under the Care Act.
“You
knew you risked losing your job. One of the managers told us all the
time, ‘If you don’t do it, I will throw you under the bus.'”
Rebecca
said she and her colleagues were also put under huge pressure to
replace the care packages of service-users receiving 15-minute care
visits with “telecare” equipment.
This
could mean handing electronic pill-dispensing devices that opened at
set times every day to service-users who previously received short
visits from social workers to ensure they took their medication.
She said the service-users would often struggle with the dispensers when they were left alone to use them in their homes.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said the latest revelations of the council’s “underhand behaviour” were “shocking”.
She
said: “Southampton council and also the CCG seem to be trying their
hardest to prevent disabled people living independently in the community
with the right levels of support.”
She said Capita was “immoral, incompetent and obviously willing to stoop to any lengths to make money”.
Ian Loynes, chief executive of Spectrum Centre for Independent Living,
a user-led organisation which is based in Southampton and supports many
of the service-users affected by the review, said: “Every disabled
person, every older person, every social worker and every human being
who is concerned for the welfare of people who require care and support
will be deeply disturbed by these allegations, if they are an accurate
representation of what has been occurring.
“We
understand the financial pressures and difficulties that social care
managers are under; however there are better ways to deliver cost
savings.”
The
whistleblower’s concerns were raised in the same week that DNS reported
how nurses carrying out disability benefits assessments for Capita –
and fellow outsourcing company Atos – were guilty of widespread
dishonesty in how they were compiling their reports for the Department
for Work and Pensions.
After
being told of the whistleblower’s allegations, a Capita spokesman said
in a statement: “We do not recognise these claims, and nor do they
reflect the culture and behaviour of the team who help deliver this
service in partnership with Southampton City Council.
“We are not financially incentivised to deliver savings.
“Our
performance is measured on the delivery of needs based assessments that
ensure people are receiving the appropriate type and level of care as
well as meeting the requirements of the Care Act.”
A
council spokesman said: “The council is working on a joint initiative
with Capita to address a backlog of overdue social care assessments and
reviews, to ensure that individuals continue to have the care and
support needed to meet their eligible social care needs and to meet its
Care Act requirements.
“This
project is part of the council’s plan to transform adult social care
services and will help to ensure that timely and regular reviews are
carried out going forward, which will help people to live full and
independent lives wherever possible and ensure people get the care and
support that best meets their needs.
“Reviews
are being completed by qualified social workers who have been carefully
vetted for their skills, knowledge and experience and are registered
with the Health and Care Professions Council.
“The
emphasis is on carrying out a thorough review, supporting people to
take up alternatives such as enhanced telecare and direct payments, if
appropriate.”
He
added later: “The results so far confirm our view that this is the most
cost-effective way of completing the reviews in a timely way, to the
required quality.”
And he said that “so far, four out of five reviews have resulted in no change to the overall care package”.
But
Rebecca said the reason that four our of five reviews had led to no
change in a care package was because many of them covered residential or
nursing placements, which refuse to accept lowered fees.
She
said it was “understood, discussed and agreed that the biggest money
savings” lay among older and disabled people living in their own homes.
Cathy Fox Southwark [8]
—
—
