A pregnant woman was
sedated against her will and her baby removed by caesarean section and taken
into care after instructions from social services, it has been claimed.
Social workers went
to the High Court to get a court order which allowed them to take the child
from the mother's womb, according to reports.
The above is the first two lines of an article on the Sky
News website. It has been tweeted by about 580 people. The original story in
the Sunday Telegraph has been tweeted by about 1000. Difficult to imagine that
that many people are interested in social work.
The twitterverse is full of indignant social workers saying
that this is terrible. Not what happened but that newsagencies have dared to
publish what is perceived to be an unfair and one-sided version of events. Why
people think it is unfair I don’t know –it does not seem unfair an unfair
judgement in light of what has been actually been made public.
The charge that it is open-sided is however, a valid one.
The reason that it is one sided can be found in the final paragraph of the Sky
news item.
Essex County Council
told Sky News in a statement: "Essex County Council does not comment on
the circumstances of on-going individual cases involving vulnerable people and
children."
That’s it. The sum total of what they have to say.
Not –‘We are very sorry – we realise that there
is much public interest in this story but we reassure that we have at all times
acted in the best interests and the interests of her baby’. Not- ‘We are very sorry but we have been
forbidden by a court order from responding to questions. We wish we could say
more but it might prejudice proceedings.’
Such alternative statements would not really hold a lot of
water. The fact that the story is being reported in the way that it is- draws
great deal of media attention that
simply would not be there if a fuller account of the story had been told. In fact,
now an MP is going to raise it in Parliament so it is difficult to see how
there could be any less of a spotlight on the story.
So, a response like ‘We
are sorry we can’t say anything’ would not have cut much ice. However it
would be a vast improvement on what they did say. What the terse statement by
Essex council is saying is ‘Sod off- we don’t
have to tell you anything and its none of your business anyway’.
Well –I’m afraid in a democracy public servants are accountable
to the public for what they do through democratic processes and the only way
that the democratic process can work is if people have information. We would
not tolerate the Police using sweeping powers like this without being expected
to explain themselves.
If there is a genuine legal reason why the council can’t
give details of the case then ought to say this and apologise to the public for
the fact they can’t comment. Furthermore if such constraints are a general problem
then social services directors ought to be campaigning for changes in the law
so that they can make more information public.
The statement by Essex seems to suggest that they are simply
not commenting because of a policy- allegedly to protect ‘vulnerable people’.
Clearly it is okay to seriously interfere with the liberty and health of a vulnerable
person but not okay to respond to reasonable public interest in what is being
done to them. This has echoes of a case
a few months ago where social workers condemned a man with learning difficulties
for putting a video on Youtube of his child being taken into care and he had to
take social services to court to get permission
to make the world aware of his story. Rather than saying he needed support to
be able to tell his side of things many social workers said he was making his
children vulnerable by putting the video online.
Surely an important part of protecting vulnerable people
ought to be making judgements taken on their behalf open to democratic scrutiny.
Vulnerable should NOT equal No right to speak or have your
story heard.
Many of my friends who would normally be supporters of public services think this present situation
is terrible. The only people who think this is a case of press victimisation are
social workers. I think the profession has to take a long look in the mirror
and think about how other people see us.Look at the Independents headline - It says that this is the 'stuff of nightmares'. Actually its the sort of stuff that can be a death blow to the credibility of a profession. It needs some good PR and damage limitation double quick. Not falling back on jobsworth -'Its not our policy to comment ......'
I have been in social work now since 1986 and all through
this time I have been constantly angered by the attitude of my profession to
the media. On one hand there is a paranoia the media is against the profession and on the other hand an arrogance about
ordinary people not being able to understand complex social work situations even
if they were told the information. Over the years few people have given my view
any credence. They have all fallen back
on the idea that these things have to kept private to protect ‘vulnerable
people’. I guess I have always been a
curmudgeon. This is one of the many popularly held views I have never agreed
with.
In the meantime the image of the profession has sunk lower
and lower and people just blame the media rather than thinking about whether we
need to think of another way of engaging with the public.
I would not trust another profession which operated in secret
so why should I expect people to trust my own when it is doing this.
It is true that newspapers do tend to favour certain political
viewpoints and groups over others. However, they will report both sides of a story
if they get it-even if they do give one side more credence. And most people do
give their side. Even the toxic waste disposal industry will respond to media
criticisms. They will make a press release that says that toxic waste burning creates jobs or that it is all quite safe
really. That might not convince many people but it is at least a response and
an attempt to change public opinion.
Social work wants to improve its image and it ought to be
capable of doing better than the toxic waste business.
The Essex response says ‘Social
Work doesn’t care what the public think and they don’t have a right to know or
the ability to understand.’
That is the attitude
we should be fighting – not the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment