Monday, February 16, 2009

Social workers and BMW

I'm not usually overly critical of social workers. They have a difficult job and sometimes they make mistakes. I also tend to think that the tendency to jump in to look for someone to 'blame' is not always sensible.

But, there are always contrary examples. The Websters and Norfolk Social services being one of them. I fail to see why someone should not be held responsible for the decision which took away three children from their parents, even though they had in fact done nothing to warrant it, and equally feel that unless evidence is absolutely water-tight, that 'final' adoption which essentially means that the so-called adoptive parents effectively have the children under false pretences.

I wonder how they can continue to bring them up knowing that there is absolutely no reason why they should be living with them? Do these people have no conscience at all - or does their selfishness and belief that they have a 'right' to a child outweigh that? Wouldn't it be refreshing if they looked for ways of restoring the situation to the way it should be in this instance? Of course, bleating voices about the rights of the children will be made - but here, it is clear enough that the social workers got it wrong. They should be held responsible, just as those who saw demons behind every corner in the non-existent 'ritual abuse' cases should have been removed from any involvement in social work again.

Was there actually any clear evidence at all in this case? It doesn't appear so.

And as for BMW and the redundancies at Cowley. Why can't the available work be shared out more fairly whilst demand is low, rather than reducing workforce numbers - that way you lose skills and make it impossible to return to production should the situation change in the future. And again, an example of agency and part time staff being treated less favourably. Which this so-called Labour (oh, the irony...) Government did naff all about when they had the opportunity.

No comments: