Fassit UK
Media Affairs Correspondent
Fassit’s response to the Chief of the
British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
It was reported on 10 May 2007, in an
article by Maria Ahmed, that “ Ian Johnston lambasted the General Social Care
Council (GSCC, the regulator for social workers) for bringing only a handful of
cases before its conduct hearings system.
The GSCC has not delivered the goods. There
are many more cases out there they could take on. ” he told Community Care. He
admitted that only 2 social workers had been ‘struck off’ since the creation of
the GSCC in April 2001.Ian Johnston’s statement is truly unbelievable!
To the uninitiated, it is well to know that
Ian Johnston is the Chief Executive of the British Association of Social Workers
(BASW). That the failings and documented criminal activity by social workers has
not been dealt with and prosecuted, is not the result of a weak and pliant GSCC;
though that is also the case. . To say the least; Ian Johnston’s statement is
disingenuous.
By far the most serious impediment to taking
action against social workers has been the senior officials in social service
departments and local government officials, themselves. In short; social workers
are protected as they go about victimising innocent and vulnerable members of
the public, by their senior officials.
Consider:
There are 91,292 registered social workers.
Since 2003, only 2 have been ‘struck off ’. Now that on its on tells you what
has been going on. Social workers on this basis are the Mother Teresa’s of
Mother Teresa’s, or……..there is a complete absence of any desire to hold them to
account. And that is indeed the inescapable truth. Social workers are being
protected by their senior officials, as they victimise innocent and vulnerable
members of the public. Some of this victimisation has been documented and is
criminal in nature.
The figure of 91,292 was obtained recently.
In late 2005, the GSCC confirmed that there were ‘over 70,000 social workers’.
It must follow, if one is to believe the GSCC, that the numbers of social
workers are increasing at the rate of 10,000 plus a year! This is the Labour
Party’s client state.
Ian Johnston’s recent attempt at showing
concern; should be taken with a pinch of salt. He is borrowing from his
political masters and doing an equally bad job of it.
Let’s consider the facts:
1. The GSCC confirmed in late 2005 that it
had registered over 375 ex-convicts, as social workers.
2. The GSCC will not respond to questions
concerning whether or not any of these 375 ex-convicts were convicted of
offences involving children and whether they have been allowed to work with
children and involved in Family Court proceedings.
3. The GSCC has allowed social workers to
register in ‘other names’. This could mean that those involved in criminal
activity, or struck off when employed abroad, had registered in completely new
names, to avoid detection. This could also create problems for the police
following up terrorist threats….But when have the police posed a threat to
social workers!
4. The GSCC has not assisted members of the
public in tracing social workers who have been dismissed in one local authority
for ‘Gross Misconduct’ and who have turned up working in the next door local
authority, or those who have left the country ‘suddenly’, after being traced,
and then equally suddenly, ‘reappeared’.
5. The GSCC will not provide information to
members of the public concerning those social workers on List 98 ( pose a danger
to children ) or list 99 ( convicted of some child related offence and should
not be employed where contact with children could occur) . This information has
been refused even when the member of the public had a valid reason and could
risk a jail sentence as a result of a prosecution involving the suspect social
worker or other ‘public official’.
Ian Johnston’s questionable statement to
Maria Ahmed of Community Care.
Local authorities social service departments
too, have refused to respond to questions concerning 1,2,3,4, and 5, above.
Indeed, local authorities have also been involved in threatening members of the
public and the press with injunctions and immediate imprisonment, for daring to
seek the answers to questions 1, 2,3,4,5.
In addition; there are grave suspicions that
even when the police have indicated an intention to investigate and charge
social workers involved in criminal activity; the police have been ‘mugged’ and
influenced to drop the case after the intervention of senior local government
officials connected with the social service departments. (See “The Gulag Of The
Family Courts”, by Jack Frost)
In a number of cases that have reached the
Family Courts, social workers and senior social workers have provided
deliberately false evidence to instigate Care proceedings. Such false evidence
has continued throughout the trial, in many cases. As a result, a number of
children have wrongly and falsely been taken into Care. A number of these
children have then been given away for adoption to strangers or to those with
close links to social workers/local government officials.
Conclusion:
It is Ian Johnston’s own members who have
been involved in concealing the information and in seeking ‘gagging orders’ and
even summary imprisonment of innocent and vulnerable members of the public. Such
action has been taken to protect and/or disguise the fact that a number of
social workers, senior social service officials and social service departments
are linked with or have relationships that identify a ‘conflict of interests’,
with the adoption and fostering agencies they have business dealings with. Ian
Johnston’s sanctimonious statement should be seen for what it is. Pure spin to
deflect attention away from social workers and their villainy.
For a comprehensive account of the conduct
of social workers ( and other ‘public officials’ ) read “ The Gulag Of The
Family Courts”, by Jack Frost . See website:
www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com..
Incidentally, John Hemming MP has arranged a ‘Media Event’ for the press/media
and members of Parliament for Wednesday 16 May 2007, to publicise the huge
scandal that has been taking place in the Family Courts and to launch the book,
“ The Gulag Of The Family Courts”, by Jack Frost
Fassit UK Correspondent
Jack Frost
www.fassit.co.uk
Please read...
Public awards for dishonourable conduct
Why social workers remove babies from their mothers
Grandmother faces year in prison
Confidentiality and Openness in Family Court
Fassit response to BASW
Adoptions cannot ever be undone?
DCA Phoney Conciliations
New DCA announcement - Social Workers
Harriet Harman the Response
The Labyrinthine links of the 'Little Hitlers'
Open or shut case - NO
The Political Social Workers
Time limits for Compensation in Child Abuse Cases
Adoption Fraud is under challenge
