A social worker who posted Facebook messages bragging about removing three children from their parents has been found guilty of misconduct at a fitness to practice hearing.Took long enough, didn’t it?
The panel said Miss Condon could continue working as a social worker under supervision, despite saying she had demonstrated “a serious failing” and that she had “not fully remediated her actions in terms of her values as a social work professional and the fundamental importance of confidentiality”.But Essex, quite rightly, weren’t about to take any chances…
Essex County Council chose not to renew Miss Condon’s contract after the case which involved three boys, all aged under ten, who were taken into care after a private hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court last year.Not that that means she’s currently practicing new skills, like salting the fries before putting them in the packet, oh, dear me, no.
Just because Essex didn’t want her, well, there’s always an authority out there whose standards are even lower:
Miss Condon, who now works for another authority, told the panel she acknowledged her unprofessional conduct and without seeking to excuse her conduct, blamed the pressures at work at the relevant time. She also said if her manager, sitting next to her when two of the comments were posted, had told her to take them down she would have done so immediately.I’m sorry? Work was so ‘pressured’ you had time to update your private Facebook page while at work..?!?
Nor was this the only example of blatant chutzpah:
Despite posting sensitive confidential information about the family on a social media site, Siobhan Condon attempted to have the hearing held in private. Miss Condon cited issues related to the disproportionate effect on her and her family of media reporting of her conduct.
However, the panel ruled it was unclear what benefit there would be in a private hearing when the case had already been publicised.
The panel said it had “carefully considered the application and, whilst appreciating the impact already made on Miss Condon’s private life by the reporting of her alleged misconduct within the media, it did not consider that she had made out a compelling case for overriding the presumption of open justice”.Utterly breathtaking.
Disabled toilet.
ReplyDeleteShe can't even work out the privacy settings on Facebook? Jesus Christ, she shouldn't even be allow to drive. It comes as no surprise though, most Social Workers I've met have been barely literate arrogant shits with a penchant for control-freakery.
ReplyDeleteStandard government worker mentality. Protecting each other to their employers, us, detriment.
ReplyDeleteSo far I find little use for social workers in a modern society. They don't get involved where they should yet revel in their power when the victim, sorry, customer is powerless.
Bunch of bullies, and that is the polite words.
"The presumption of open justice" sure doesn't apply in the family courts.
ReplyDeleteHow many Common Purpose courses has she done? Better jobs network than the Freemasons.
ReplyDeleteIf someone under serious investigation by the australian parliament is selected by our parliament for a top job it shouldn't be too hard for a stupid social worker!
ReplyDeleteBTW - if he was there why wasn't her manager also subject to similar proceedings?
All this justification "legalese" speak to cover their liabilities is very exasperating.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to social worker bullying, record any conversations/interviews.
ReplyDeleteIt really puts them on the back foot, and they'll come out with all sorts of bollox as to why interviews can not be recorded. This here's a council house, so it's council property. I point out that in the eyes of the law, this is my home. Then there was the "But it's against the law to record government officials". Oh really said I, ever heard of PACE? Not only that, I can record anything I damn well please in my home, and what's more I don't even have to tell you as only one party to the conversation needs to know it's being recorded.
My daughter had a real chippy bastard giving her a hard time. They had concerns as to the childs well being, as there was food out on the kitchen worktops, and food all over the floor in the living room.
Upon further investigation and questioning of said pumpstick by me, it turned out that he had called at tea time, so there would have been food out in the kitchen.
I then got onto him about all this food all over the floor in the living room. Was it a 3 course meal? A large donna and chips? Or perhaps a family bucket from KFC, with rats gnawing on the left over bones? Why no, it turned out to be 2 empty crisp packets and a half eaten apple.
That was the end of him, he slunk away with his tail firmly between his legs.
Got a letter shortly afterwards saying, No further action will be taken, but there was the covert threat, paraphrased as "Watch yourself or we'll be back"..
"She can't even work out the privacy settings on Facebook? Jesus Christ, she shouldn't even be allow to drive."
ReplyDeleteCourts are expected to swallow any old crap. Maybe because so often, they do!
""The presumption of open justice" sure doesn't apply in the family courts."
No, indeed... :/
"BTW - if he was there why wasn't her manager also subject to similar proceedings?"
Good point!
"Then there was the "But it's against the law to record government officials". Oh really said I, ever heard of PACE?"
They love to try that one. A friend, recording a conversation, was told that 'RIPA forbids this!'
He laughed. RIPA extends only to those with the power to investigate, not the public.