Parents Fear For Pupils’ Mental State At £53,000 Fee School


This is all very worrying in any school let alone a special school for children with autism. I have had my doubts for sometime about CQC inspections, for they did not notice the abuses at Winterborne so can you really believe their inspection reports.

I inspections and reports need to be greatly improved for all concerned.

Same Difference

A private special needs school, whose directors include businessmen associated with the Winterbourne View care home scandal, has been accused of putting profit ahead of pupils’ needs.

Annual fees paid by councils to send pupils to Leaways School in east London are £53,000 – higher than Eton.

One parent told a BBC investigation she is pulling out her son as she fears for his mental state if he stays there.

However, Leaways denied the claims that it put money ahead of welfare.

In a statement, the school said: “We strongly refute the suggestion profit is ever put ahead of the needs of children.

“The vast majority of families are happy with our school and they see their children doing very well here.”

The school says it was “deeply saddened to hear the opinions of a small minority… of our parent and staff community”.

‘Sold a dream’

One is Donna, who…

View original post 1,016 more words

Whistleblowing care professionals ‘priced out of justice’


Original post from Community Care

‘……………..by

Priced out of justice. Photo: REX Features
Priced out of justice. Photo: REX Features

Care sector workers, including social workers, are less likely than other groups to have legal representation when raising concerns about their employer, according to research by whistleblowers’ charity, Public Concern at Work.

‘David and Goliath’

The Public Interest Disclosure Act was intended to level the playing field, but chief executive of Public Concern at Work, Cathy James, said it was clear blowing the whistle remained a “David and Goliath battle”, with workers without legal representation far more likely to lose their case.

“Unable to access legal aid and faced with the financial burden of paying for advice, representation and court fees, many individuals are effectively being priced out of justice,” she said.

Foster carers

The charity also raised concerns about foster carers who wanted to blow the whistle on poor practice by local authorities.

Legal researcher, Sam Bereket, who drafted the study, said foster carers did not fall under the Public Interest Disclosure Act’s definition of a “worker” and so were not afforded the same protection.

Concerns for service user safety

Those working in the care sector were far more likely than the general population to blow the whistle over concerns for their service users than for themselves, according to the study which reviewed employment tribunals involving a whistleblowing claim under the Public Interest Disclosure Act between 2011 and 2013.

Care professionals most commonly blew the whistle on their employer because of abuse to those in their care and concerns for service user safety, whereas the most common reasons among other groups of workers were discrimination, harassment and workplace safety.

Access to justice for whistleblowers was further restricted by the fact the total amount of costs ordered against claimants was £753,135, while for respondents this figure was much smaller at £183,992.

Community Care research earlier this year found high numbers of social workers had witnessed abusive (40%), unethical (58%), illegal (24%) or dangerous (65%) practice.

No effective action

Almost all respondents to the Community Care survey said they had reported their concerns but 73% said no effective action had been taken.

Many said they had disciplinary action taken against them for raising concerns. Some said they had stopped raising safeguarding concerns for fear that they would be threatened with capability measures.

Public Concern at Work recommended legal aid should be available to whistleblowers pursuing claims against their employers in the public interest, and that the law should be widened to included foster carers.

Related articles:

court reporters   Legal experts call for greater transparency in the Court of Protection

scottish parliament   Scotland consults on controversial ‘named person’ proposals

Photo: REX/F1 Online   Family judge criticises NQSW for “unacceptable delays” in complex fostering case

Gavel   Former employee takes BASW to tribunal over unfair dismissal and racial discrimination claims  ………’

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Legal experts call for greater transparency in the Court of Protection scottish parliamentScotland consults on controversial ‘named person’ proposals Photo: REX/F1 OnlineFamily judge criticises NQSW for “unacceptable delays” in complex fostering case GavelFormer employee takes BASW to tribunal over unfair dismissal and racial discrimination claims 

 

 

Why are people afraid of a powerful China but not a powerful US?


Original post by Rahul Parkar from Quora

Let me bring a different perspective, an Indian one; since we have plenty of Western ones already in the media and here in Quora.

From an Indian perspective it is very interesting to see this kind of reactions on both sides. Despite the wholehearted assimilation of a huge diaspora in US indicating a huge cultural understanding of America in among Indians, relations are not what you would expect them to be. The reasons for this, while being numerous, generally have been mainly to do with a failure on Americans to actively engage with India in a friendly manner that allows India liberty to follow her own foreign relations as she sees fit. This has never occurred as for America “close relations” has always meant to take a country into her fold in every possible manner. This has, is and will be always be a big stumbling block between US-India relations.

Since India views America in through this lens, naturally the actions of US are looked at very differently. India is more perceptive to view America’s actions as a mixture of chaos and running interferences in every single countries. The second point is quite sensitive considering that India was under the rule of a foreign power for 150 years. This is always ignored in every analysis of relations between the two countries. This is also one of the reasons why India’s foreign policy in the Cold War was oriented towards combating imperial colonies. Hence this is one of the reasons why Indians don’t see eye to eye with American policies almost everywhere. And having almost come to war with US during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 (the result of an extremely stupid and short sighted decision under Nixon), and being under the spell of sanctions, India hasn’t always embraced the US.

Now coming to China, I think the most important view held by many Indians is just the sheer scale of economic development that have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Delhi however looks at the growing Chinese influence with slight suspicion. But the broader picture is very positive as most of the Indians living now were born after or were too small to remember the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Relations are not what they could be, but there seems to have been a growing realization on both sides of the fence of putting past squabbles on the side and co-operating on important issues and having more exchanges on each other. The Chinese in my opinion seem to have an excellent understanding of according the respect to Delhi of not in anyway dictating what Indian policies should be. There are of course concerns regarding frequent border incursions in the dispute Aksai Chin area, but these seem to be minor and won’t be something which derisively affect Indo-Chinese relations.

So from an Indian POV, the issue is looked at with drastic differences than what the West looks it at as. While India would naturally share some concerns about a powerful China on the account of sharing a disputed border with it, but the current engagement between both countries suggests a policy of a mutual and healthy co-existence. While there is a bit of anger against China shared in some communities, particularly in the Northeast and Ladakh due to the complexities in China and Tibet’s relation, the larger majority of younger people are more swayed by the image of China’s rise as a country poorer than India 30 years ago to become the 2nd largest economy in the world.  ……………..’

The final judgement for the ILF


Disabled men lose high court bid to stop Independent Living Fund closure

This was the last chance to save the ILF* and now it as gone, so now it will be no more after 30 June 2015, so will the respective local authorities now come to a decision on how they will take over the responsibility on 1 July 2015.

However on the past record of these authorities do we have any trust in them, for with the austerity cuts the monies for care and support for those persons in need are reducing. Have any authorities come to a decision, I know for a fact that my own in Sheffield have not.

The persons currently receiving ILF funding for their care and support are now in a position of not knowing how this required care and support will continue to be funded, if at all from 1 July 2015. I also know that the processes that need to be enacted by the local authorities take time and I honestly believe that if decisions and practices have not already been decided upon none of these authorities will be ready by 1 July 2015.

Care and support can not be stopped and then recommenced in the future, because what is going to happen to the persons concerned, as they need the care and support for their own survival.

Over the last years we have seen many care scandals emerge, Winterborne*being only one, will this be the next.

Without the care and support, safeguarding concerns will arise, if they are not already with the cuts already being in process.

What will happen to those who can not live without the care and support, is pain and suffering with death the ultimate result the way of the future. Will the current Government and also the local authorities really allow this to occur?

Will this be the scandal to out do all scandals?

 

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Safeguarding will an issue happen in Sheffield?


Sheffield Social Services are they creating safeguarding issues

Sheffield Social Services (1) are currently in a financial dilemma, with an anticipated budget overspend, do they cut spending in the department or endeavour to obtain monies from other budgets, it would appear the former, but what will this eventually create?

What has occurred?

The Social Services budget for 2012/2013 was overspent by £6.3 million and there is now a projected overspend for Social Services of £11 million, of which £6.5 million is in Learning Disabilities (1).

So if there were not significant changes in practices or other means from 2012/2013 to 2013/2014 there would have been an expected overspend of £6.3 million. But due to Government austerity cuts, it is said that savings of 20% need to be made.

The following is an extract from  Budget Conversion 2014-2015: Shaping our future together (1)

‘But Sheffield Social Services accept that we have an increasing number of older people, particularly very old people. They also expect a 32% increase in people aged over 85 in the next 10 years.

For disabled Adults with complex needs (2), there is an increase of 5% each year.

This is in addition to an increase in the number of older people being discharged from hospital who need social care support.

There is more people with mental health issues seeking social services funded support – a 64% increase from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013.

An increase in the demand and cost of support packages for people needing support. Between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013

– number of customers supported increased by 11%

– average cost of support per customer increased by 8%.’

This is at a time when according to the article 72 more jobs in social services are at risk. Who will be going and what action is being taken?  Is this action appropriate? As the facts are extremely limited, and knowledge is not forthcoming due to apparent employment restrictions.

So at a time when demand is increasing to make savings staffing levels are being reduced.

If by any methods of reducing costs the demands on the service are not met, this will result in some safeguarding issues for the most vulnerable adults residing in Sheffield.

While this may not be at the scale of Winterborne (2) or Mid-Staffs (3). It will cause a degree of risk to some, at least, of these adults who are vulnerable.

These are not people who can be discarded or left to fend for themselves.  Without the services they require to ensure their critical needs are met, these needs will not be met.

These social services are priority services and need to be maintained at all costs.

While I do not have the figures to hand, it is logical to assume, if there was an over spend in the budget of 2012/2013, then there would be an over spend in 2013/2014, before taking into account the budget reduction, and the increases in the demand and resultant increase in costs.

You have to question, was the budget set for 2013/2014, a realistic budget (1) and if not, it was doomed to an over spend greater than in the previous year.

As the budgets, I assume, are monitored by the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council, why have they been so quiet?

Some budget information was apparently released, but no apparent mention re Social Services

Is Sheffield being fairly treated by Central Government.

(1) © Copyright of Sheffield City Council 2013

(2) Crown Copyright. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0

(3) © The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry 2010