This is the Worst Government Since Thatcher

No actually...... Its infinitely worse. Mrs Thatcher did have a North Sea Oil bonanza (which should have made the country rich, and a load of public assets (such as utility companies) to sell off. These acted as a buffer to prevent the true scale of the economic disaster she presided over to become apparent. Now that the family silver has all been sold off there is not even a fig leaf left to cover Osborne's embarrassment.
The blame for all this collapse is now being directed at the public sector, aided and abetted by the appalling Eric Pickles- probably the first ever Minister who volunteers for extra cuts for his sector. How he must hate Local Goverment.  
Lets get a few things straight.
1) The north east is not 'dependent' on public sector jobs. Many public sector jobs were transferred to the north east from London by previous Governments because it is cheaper in terms of office costs and ionterms of wages (since no London weightings). It was also considered an important tool in balancing the economy. Britian has a very London centric economy. This is not the fault of people in other parts of the country. It is the fault of successive Governments in not building effective infrastructure and transport networks to other parts of the country. Admittedly this is one area which the current Government is trying to address though it is too little too late.
2) The fact that some people WANT to work in the public sector should not be a bad thing. Public sector jobs include functions such as health and social care, sanitation and publci protection which are absolutely essential to a civilised society and a healthy economy. Look at the financial costs which individuals and businesses are currently suffering because of pot holed roads that councils simply cant afford to repair. Public service is not a luxury or a destination for the feckless. It includes some of the most important jobs in the country. BY their very definition all public services are essential. These functions were given to the public service because it was felt that they could not be left to the public sector. There was once a time in Britain when a fire truck would go past a burning building if it didn't have the right insurance certificate displayed on its front.  We should be pleased that good people want to go into public service. Our families' education and health are dependent on them.
3)  Osborne claims that private businesses are being starved of good workers because pay is more attractive in the public sector. This is not true. Many skills needed for public sector are not easily transferable to the private sector- they involve different skill sets.   
In my area of Northumberland we have lost a number of small and medium private sector businesses big and small in recent years. When interviewed in the local press the owners always cite the poor state of the economy as reasons for their demise. I have never read of any local businesses being unable to recruit people. There are not enough jobs to go round. The main effect of the slashing of the public sector in our region has been to deprive the local economy of purchasing power and reduce confidence in people to buy things. If your local Government job is currently under threat because of endless cutbacks stretching ahead then you are not going to feel confident to task out a loan on a new kitchen. My car has 120,000 miles on the clock- I don't feel sufficiently confident to buy a new one. I will run this one out till its ready for the scrappy.
4) Increments  for public sector workers are not unearned pay rises. They reflect the fact that as people mature in a job role the level of responsibility they are required to adopt increases with their experience. Normally when a public sector worker gets a promotion, the starting salary for their new role is not very much higher than what they were earning before. Only as they become experienced does their remuneration start to properly reflect their role. I am not opposed to performance related pay to reward above standard performance- but Osborne is proposing it just to save money at the expense of workers  who are NOT repsonsible for the mess we are in - while bankers (some of whom ought to be in jail) are still walking off with bonuses.
4) Labour is still allowing the Conservatives to dictate the agenda and their failure to respond to Osborne's agenda with an alternative will probably cost them the next election.
Austerity has failed. This is the conclusion in an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. It advocates against the U.S. adopting austerity measures because they have failed in Europe.
Labour need to advocate a bold agenda for change, development and growth  and DARE to believe in a future of prosperity where workers private and public sector are all valued and given a fair dayus pay for a days work. A society which cares about supporting the most vulnerable and offering and good public services for all citizens.
I didn't like Blair's stance on the Iraq war or some of New Labour's policies around privatization of public services but at least he did promise- and deliver - increased prosperity.
If Labour are to become electable they will need to match his boldness and optimism.

Frequently Asked Pestions and How to Repond to Them

Pestions is my name for questions which are really mechanisms which people use to,avoid work or responsibility or transfer this responsibility to other people.
Here a a few typical Pestions with suggested rebuttals

1. I have a concern, can I share it?
What this means is that the person saying it wants to make their concern your concern so that they can forget about it. The best rebuttal to this is: Yes you can share it but I am first going to ask what you have done about the issue before approaching me and secondly how are WE going to deal with the concern together.

2. Can I tell you something with absolute confidentiality? The best answer to this No or alternatively Yes, provided it does not compromise me ethically or prevent me discharging a responsibility.
People often think they can help with a difficult problem just by giving you information. However, without them being willing to testify to what they  have said it is often impossible to do anything meaningful about these concerns. Really they have solved their conscience by telling someone else but have left the recipient of the information impotent because they can't reveal the source. People in this situation need to be reminded that if they want to make a difference they need to follow through on what they are saying and stand by it.

3. Can I share this great idea I had for .....?
Hidden meaning: I have thought of something new for you to do
Best Response: yes you can share your ide and then I will help YOU to make it a reality. Everyone has ideas but that is only the first step.Doing the work is the hard part.


4. Can you keep me more in the loop about.....?
Usually people are out of the loop on something because they are not contributing to it. Sometimes there is a good for reason for that as they may be busy doing something else. However, it can sometimes be the case that they just want a right to comment on something or a veto without having to do any work.
Best reply. If you want to be in the loop come to the next working group meeting and be prepared to take some tasks away from it.


5. Can I talk to you about something awful that I have just realised .........
Often said by colleagues who on the day before they go on holiday suddenly realise they have a project or something they have neglected. Usually something they want to avoid.
Best rebuttal: Well luckily there are still 3 hours till the office closes and I am sure that the other things in your diary can be postponed till you get back.

The beauty of these rebuttals is that if the matter that is being brought to our attention is frivolous then the other persons  'concerns' will soon evaporate. If on the other hand they are important then you have a sound basis for moving forward WITH the other person and without you being lumbered with all the work.
Let me know if you encounter Pestions, especially ones that aren't on my list and let me know how you deal with them!

What if....Todd Rundgren was MC for Mrs Thatcher's Funeral

Monday 8^th April  marked the release of Todd Rundgren's latest album State and of course the death of a certain person. In view of Mrs Thatcher's views about the state I took this as a sign that I should think about what a playlist might be if Todd was asked to MC this upcoming event. Unfortunately his 'State Visit' to the UK is not for another couple of months so he will not be able to perform this function. However, due to the wonders of digital recording all we need is a docked iPod and a sound system to make your ears bleed.

Some people might see Billy Bragg as a more suitable performer for this occasion or The Jam. However, I think that would be a bit obvious and anyway I can't stand them. This is fantasy playlist for an aging progger as the best way of paying his last disrespects.

Track 1 Swing To the Right.

This song was written at the height of Reaganomics and sums up flavour of the politics of the Thatcher/Reagan right wing love in. 'Excuse me for living but I got my own worries- Like staying fat'.

Track 2 Bag Lady.

This is a pun for the playlist. On one hand it references Mrs Thatcher's handbagging of Europe. On the other hand it is a song about poverty and how the poor and homeless get ignored. During Thatcher's reign I lived in Bristol and I saw lots of mentally ill people living out on the streets as a result of psychiatric hospitals being closed without community provision being made. Homelessness and destitution became really common during the early eighties and sights of people in cardboard boxes became common.

Track 3 Johnee Jingo.   

  This is a song about people being conscripted to the army to fight on wars and ow it justified by flag waving a patriotism.

'To the man who owns the land  

We're all the same

But when his grip begins to slip
Then he'll be calling out your name
Johnee jingo
And the throne, the pulpit and the politician
Create a thirst for power in the common man
It's a taste for blood passed off as bravery
Or just patriotism hiding bigotry.'

I think these last two lines sum up the jingoism about the Argentinians around the Falklands war and how Thatcher boosted her popularity through sending soldiers off to shoot young conscripts in the name of a bleak piece of rock and how the tabloids sold loads of copies off the back of it.
Two lines of the chorus sum up how many people felt about it who said 'Not in my name'.
'Jingo don't you fight for me.
Jingo don't you speak for me.'

Track 4 Mammon.     

 A good stirring number. The target of this song is right wing Pastors. However, I think it could easily be applied to Mrs T. Although not a religious person I was disgusted that she quoted St Francis of Assisi and spoke in churches about inflation being a sin etc.
The line 'Your God is Mammon. Your God is dead.' This could be applied to Thatcher herself  in as much as the holy grail of the banking industry has turned out to be sham of smoke and mirrors. Or it could be applied to the people who idolise Thatcher.

Track 5. Honest Work.  

This is the most powerful and poignant track of all. It is about the fate of people who were thrown out of work in traditional industries in the name of modernising economies.
'I'm not afraid to bend my back
I'm not afraid of dirt
But how I fear the things I do
For lack of honest work
My family is lost to me
They could not bear the hurt
To see the state their boy is in
For lack of honest work.........
Captains of industry
Have visions and great designs

But none have room for me........

I know I’m not the only one to fall beneath the wheel

Such company cannot assuage the loneliness I feel

So many as resigned to be

Society’s debris

But I will be remembered for

The life life took from me’

I heard a man on radio 4 today talking about how he had lost his job, his home and his family as a direct result of Thatcher’s policies. This happened to whole communities in the North under Thatcher  and she showed no compassion for those people or communities. They were not even collateral damage. She seemed to relish it. It was deemed as tough but necessary medicine for people who had become complacent and dependent on union restrictive practices.   Many would agree that working practices in the UK had to change but it could have been done in a less heartless way.

Track 6 Strike.

A rousing number to unite people and remind us that a general strike could have unseated Thatcher and it could be an antidote to the worst excesses of the coalition. Every time Todd cries ‘Strike!’ the audience shout back Strike! and raise their arms.

Track 7 Who’s Sorry Now

‘Don’t surround your heart with hardness

You may someday need someone to sympathise

Before you’re crushed by your own selfishness

You must confess we are all in  

This together we....’

Speaks for itself. Thatcher’s self doctrine brought a callousness to the UK and broke down the social contract. However, ultimately we will all need other people just as Mrs T did when her health  failed her.

Track 8 Broke Down and Busted

That is the state of the country as a result of the Thatcher legacy. I never understood how banks, which don’t make anything could be seen as a major source of income generation without a healthy real economy to serve. I also couldn’t understand how service industries could be the dominant part of an economy without a manufacturing economy to serve. Or how housing could be a major asset in a country where people didn’t own much else or have the underlying wealth to pay for it.

Of course- it all turned out to be phony wealth built on easy credit and fiat money.

Track 9 Something in my Mouth

Hot off the presses from State-released this week.

‘Might be a word

Might be a kiss

There is something in my mouth

Something in my mouth for you’

Todd doesn’t say what the something is but in the case of Mrs T then for a lot of people its likely to be something you might get from the mouth of camel, a llama or a heavy smoker. So hum this pleasant ditty and use your imagination.

Track 10 Compassion

‘You’ll get no judgement from me

I can only feel compassion’.

This is a really inspirational song and preaches non-judgementalism and good will towards all beings. It seems to express the Buddhist concept of compassion and is a feeling I ought be experiencing but even to Mrs T but I am finding it really hard. Maybe Todd can move the crowd to put all our bitterness aside. It is hard especially with someone who seemed to despise kindness towards the weak.

Track 11 Love is the Answer

A real crowd pleaser and an ever popular encore song.  And for everyone present, a real antidote to Thatcherism.  

Todd Rundgren comes to the UK in June. Gigs include The Sage in Gateshead and venues in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and other cities.

His extensive back catalogue is available as CDs or downloads from Amazon and other distributers.

   

Mick Philpott and the Right Left Switcheroo

Not surprisingly there has been a lot of press coverage of the infamous Rick Philpott and his terrible crime. One of the bizarre things which I find about the coverage is that the way the story has been portrayed by both the left and right wing press seems to parody how social issues are normally covered in these outlets and brings out the shortcomings of how they respectively analyse such issues in the normal course of events.
First case in point is the Daily Mail. This newspaper constantly emphasises individual morality and individual responsibility. Social inequality and failings in the structure of society are rarely allowed to be seen as a contributing factor for social problems by this paper. Criminals are normally held as solely responsible for their actions regardless of the adversity they face in society. And yet this week, the paper concluded that a system was responsible for Someone's criminal behaviour. In this case - the benefits system. Admittedly this is not a system which sociologists normally associate with causing deviant behaviour. However, it is in some ways a watershed moment because if The Mail can believe that the benefits system can cause crime then surely it ought to be possible that other systems and institutions and factors such as structural inequality might also affect people's behaviour and that to everyone can be equally held personally responsible for all of their actions all of the time.
Meanwhile, the Guardian, in trying to deflect the idea that that the benefits system could be a factor in the crime, reached a watershed of its own. They actually admitted for once that individuals have responsibility for their own actions regardless of what systems or societal Influences they may have been subject to. This paper which would normally see Philpott's disgusting sexism towards his partners as a result of a patriarchal society were arguing strongly in a big headlines 'Don't let Philpott off the hook' and describing his behaviour as criminal rather than a response to a broken society. In order to counter the Daily Mail assertions the Guardina had to discover free will and individual responsibility.
Of course there are lots of other factors which might go towards explaining Philpott's terrible behaviour: evolutionary psychologists would look at the reproductive value of his anti-social behaviour ( he has been a prolific father) towards women and point to a genetic component in his behaviour style. Learning theorists would look to the sort of be hour he had winsessed in his childhood environment and I could go on and on.
The true fact is that no single theory or perspective can in itself explain a whole set of events or the psychology of an individual.
It would be nice if the turnabout of the left and right newspapers learnt from this that no single theory or view of human psychology can explain our society or any of the individuals in it. In any case people do have free will and are not just passive victims in a deterministic world.
This is something we also need to remember as educationalists. We must teach the full diversity of biological, behavioural, social and societal factors which influence human behaviour as well as are unique capacity amongst animals for reflection and development and not just a narrow discourse from sociology.
I don't hold out much hope of change from biased newspapers whether they be on the left or right or from people with a strong political ideology. I do have faith in education.

Outsourcing Governance and Oversight in Social Services: Why CRB decision by Court of Appeal is a landmark decision for common sense.

Lord Dyson’s Court of Appeal decision this week on CRB checking is a landmark decision for common sense and proportionality.

When I qualified as a social worker CRB checks had not yet come in. Over the course of my career I have seen CRB checking become a vast industry consuming large amounts of time and money and in my opinion doing very little to protect vulnerable people.

Just to give a sense of how ridiculous the situation has become I will relay an anecdote from my own experience. A number of years ago I was teaching a social sciences subject at a University. This is not a job that requires a CRB check (not yet anyway) and students on the course do not automatically need to be police checked. One of my third year students was going to do a dissertation on respite care for a vulnerable client group. The participants in her study were going to be residents of a respite care facility where she already worked part time. As part of the condition of ethical approval for the study the University  (not my current employer) insisted that the student be Police checked even though she had already been Police checked to work in the respite care centre. Not only that, but because I would potentially have access to data about vulnerable people( though this was largely of the nature of whether they were enjoying respite) I would have to be Police checked too. This was despite the fact that I would never set foot in the respite centre or learn the real names of any of the participants on the study.

 At the time it did not worry me unduly because I have no history of any type of convictions or cautions. However, what if I had? Supposing I had committed some sort of indiscretion as a young man such as being drunk or disorderly or possessing cannabis? If this had been the case then I would have had the embarrassment of having this revealed to colleagues in my organisation- albeit that they would be expected to keep it confidential.

Over the last few years I have changed jobs several times and had to be Police checked every time, even though none of the PBS would involve me having direct, unsupervised contact with social work service users. If I had had a minor offence then I would have had the embarrassment of having to disclose it every time I applied for a on for the rest of my life and having to pray that people made sensible judgements about its significance.

I can't imagine what that feels like. The right to have a job is a very fundamental human right. Many will say that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. They also argue that most employers will make fair decisions about the significance of spent convictions. But what is a fair decision about an old conviction and how do employers make a fair decision. When Police checks were introduced they were only for workers who had substantial unsupervised access to children. This was based on strong evidence that offenders with a sexual interest in children were likely to reoffend and would seek jobs which would allow them to get access to children.  However, what is the evidence that people seek jobs working with adults to re-offend? Do reformed shoplifters look for jobs as personal assistants to rob the people they care for and if they do then how many cases are there of something like that actually happening? How many people are we actually protecting by the amount of time and resources which are put into Police checking. Would that money be better spent on supervision of staff or advocacy for service users?

Then there is the issue of how individual employers try to make sense of previous convictions. Nobody would put someone with a serious sex offence in a job in personal social services- but what about a fraud conviction from 10 years ago or a minor shoplifting case from 3 years ago? Is Anthony Worrell Thompson a danger to all vulnerable people because he stole something from Tescos a couple of years ago? Does this reveal a brief episode of psychological distress leading to a very bad decision or does it reveal a tendency towards other criminal behaviour. I don't know the answer to these questions because I am not a criminologist. I don't know the criminal profile of people who go on from minor offending to serious exploitation of others. Neither do HR staff in employers all over the country. They will try to come to common sense decisions but their decisions will also be based in part on their predisposition to giving others second chances, or on their prejudices about certain kinds of offenders. They will also be mindful of the fact that if one of their employees does commit an offence on the job or some sort of malpractice then the media may slate them for employing someone of ‘bad character’ even if what they have done is unrelated to the previous offence. There is therefore pressure in a rick aversive culture to not take chances on people.  

I really feel for young people who have or explain when they apply for a place on a social work course how they got into some scrape outside a pub after high jinks with their friends years ago and ended up getting arrested. They will have to go on explaining such an incident for the rest of their career.

There is also the issue that social work ought to be a profession in which we welcome people who have turned their life around. People who have been in care as young people are disproportionately likely to have convictions as children due to the fact that Police are often called to events at assessment centres in situations where they would not be called to a family home.

We also need to remember that the criminal justice system does not treat all types of people equally. There is evidence of women being sentenced more severely than men for the same types of offences. Institutional racism in Police forces is well documented in literature. There are also potential class differences in outcomes. Working class children may not realise that a caution will go on their record. Children from richer backgrounds may realise, or be advised, that the Police may decide not to prosecute a minor offense and that they are better off refusing a caution.

As social workers and social work educators we are aware of the imbalance in how people are treated in the criminal justice system though we judge information from the Police database as though no biases or prejudices exist.

Then there is of course the issue of what a Police check does not reveal. The person who got caught shoplifting  10 years ago may have learned their lesson and reformed or they may just have got better at stealing and not been caught again. Many people who are sexual predators go on offending for years without a single conviction. CRB information can give a false sense of security about a candidate for a job. It only reveals convictions. The usual response to this point is that people say that we need better Police checks and we need to include intelligence and suspicions which the authorities or employers had about people. A sort of Minority Report situation where we can spot the offenders in advance using Police data.

People point to the Ian Huntley case or Jimmy Saville as people who might have been stopped with better use of Police data. Actually there are much more efficient and simple ways of dealing with such situations which don't involve computers. Ian Huntley would not have been employed as a caretaker if his employer had taken the simple step of asking for a reference from his previous employer. As for Jimmy Saville we can ask why a Disc Jockey ( albeit one with a clean record) was given unlimited access to children's hospitals, psychiatric units and hospital morgues.

The real keys to keeping service users safe are proper supervision and oversight of staff, good whistle blowing procedures and advocacy for service users to ensure that their concerns and complaints are listened to and investigated properly.

I suspect that the real appeal of Police checking lies in people's faith in computers as a magical source of information and insight. Just as Willow, in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer who could google all sorts of arcane information about demons, many of us think that Police computers will issue forth all sorts of secret data on suspicious characters. It is actually a way of outsourcing responsibility for good selection processes and the ongoing safety of service users.

The real path to safe practice I feel lies in how we supervise staff while they are working. There is a role for CRB checks but the present level of Police checking is neither necessary nor sufficient to the role which most of the sector thinks it ought to play at present.

Selection and supervision of staff who work with sensitive clients is a complex and ongoing process. It cannot be outsourced to a police computer.

Let’s reform this process, get some sense of proportion and stop outsourcing our responsibilities.

Why the Truth Behind Rotherham Makes the Council's Public Behaviour Even more Deplorable

Earlier last night there was an article published on Guardian website which revealed that there was a great deal more to the Ukip fostering story than the couple's membership of Ukip. A number of tweeters are now using this as justification for why it was not right to condemn the intial decision. In fact, many people replied to my original blog post and tweets with a similar view. I had apparently taken a view based on limited information while they chose to refrain from judgements based on their trust of fellow social workers to make sound judgements. No doubt they now think that my views in my earlier blog are now refuted.
Well, I actually feel even more justified than before for my original blog and I think the truth which is emerging makes me feel even more justified in my anger about how Rotherham has handled this. If you want to know what the bigger picture is then read the Guardian article before what follows.

1. Saying that we should trust council officials to make sound judgements without scrutiny and oversight flies in the face of many experiences where people int he public trust made very unsound judgements. It was public officials who gave Jimmy Saville ( an entertainer) a set of keys to Broadmoor and unlimited access to children's hospitals. It was public officials who lied about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster to cover their own bad practice. These are not isolated incidents. Anyone on the public service needs to be accountable and should always tell the truth or as much of it as they can to the press which is a legitimate vehicle for public discussion in a democracy. This is the only way we can ensure oversight, accountability and good practice.
I suspected that there would be other reasons for the Rotherham decision. However, I made my judgement about their practice based on what answers they gave to the media because that is the only way I, or anyione else could form a judgement. I accept that I can't know all the details of private matters but I should at least be told that the type of factors which would have influenced the decision.

2. It is important to note that the foster parent couple are partners of the council in their care of children. As such they should be treated with respect. I think if they had been told that the decision was to made due to cultural sensitivities with the community and as a result of fears that the placement was not secure then they would have probably accepted what the council said and not gone to the media.

3. Accepting that the issue had gone into the public domain, it is important that the public are given enough of the real story that they can form a judgment about he validity of the decision. The Guardian has now published enough details of the story to help the public form a judgement without betraying confidentiality or risking the children. The council could easily have done the same and in the process informed the public about fostering and it's complexity.

4. Some commentators have complained about 'political interference in social work decisions' or that the story has been spun for political purposes. These are often the very same people who normally argue that social work is a political activity and that social workers should pursue political goals in their work.
Social work is a political activity, but I think that should be pursued within openness, and with respect for the public and the democratic processes of this country. An important tool the political debate is the media. Social workers need to communicate what they do and how they do it in a non- elitist way which accepts that ordinary people CAN engage with complex ideas if given the opportunity to do so. Some people think it is about them enforcing their idea of what the right politics are on other people and closing down access to debates. Using jargon and saying that issues are too complicated is patronising and excluding of ordinary people.

5. Social work only exists as a paid activity because politicians were convinced that this was worthwhile and the public has supported the idea. It's continued existence as a state activity is dependent on the public accepting that social workers do a worthwhile job in a fair and transparent way. The profession would do well to remember that.

Stop Defending the Indefensible

 

I have been a social worker for over 20 years. Over the years I hear my colleagues complaining about the bad media image which social work  has. I almost never agree with these views. I take the view that it is up to social work to put forward a positive image. The ‘media’(or at least the quality media) is not made up of people who have it in for social work. It is made up if people who have to fill column inches with stories which are of legitimate public interest. They can only give two sides of a story of they are given two sides. Even the much vilified banking industry can get its act together to put forward a positive spin. Often apologists for the poor image presence of the profession will say that social work departments cannot reply to adverse accusations in the media because of ‘confidentiality’. This is a lame excuse. It is always possible to reply to a story in general terms of reply and state general principles. If people have gone to the media then it is at the very least possible to refute false statements that people have made. In fact, it is essential that this is done from the point of view of accountability and public interest. Imagine a situation where members of the public made untrue accusations about  being falsely arrested or held without trial by the Police. If the Police refused to respond to these accusations then the public trust in them would be undermined.

Social work services including fostering are public services paid for through taxes. It is entirely appropriate that the public should have an interest in how and why decisions relating to how services are provided. If we cant defend our practice then the public will make judgements in the informaation which they have and the democratic process will translate these judgements into policies and law.

Case in point the Rotherham fostering case. Some social work tweeters have made comments such as ‘They can’t respond because of confidentiality’ or ‘There must be more to it than that’. A few people have even said to me that they think  that UKIP members shouldn’t foster because the party is against multiculturalism.

 

Lets examine these ideas:

1. Ukip is against multi-culturalism. This does not automatically mean that everyone in the party takes this view. I have yet to meet a member of the Labour party who agrees with the decision to invade Iraq. Membership of the labour party does not automatically indicate that someone is in favour of carrying out illegal wars on trumped up reasons or joining in a neoconservative crusade in the middle east. I imagine the couple were asked about their views in their fostering assessment.

2. The story has been invented by the media. The Rotherham head of childrens services was interviewed by The Sunday Times and other media. She herself said that the decision to remove the children was based on the couples membership of UKIP. Unless she was hypnotised to say this by Rupert Murdoch then it is difficult to see how the story has been trumped up by the media.

3. There are other reasons and they council cant reveal them without compromising confidentiality. If this was the case then why tell the media a reason that is not true or at least only partially true without saying that there are other reasons. If there are good reasons for the decision then why mention one that is spurious. It would have been better to say nothing at all or say that they are prevented from speaking at this time.

4. The council cant respond to what the couple is saying. Nonsense. They can at the very least say that couple is not telling the truth if the reasons the couple is giving to the media are incorrect. In fact they have done the opposite and verified the couple’s version on the media- quite unashamedly I think.

5. The couple are bigoted. I have just seen them on BBC News saying that they joined UKIP because they disliked sovereignty being ceded to Europe. I tend to believe them. I think that is probably the case for many members of this party-thats why its called UK Independence party. Why could the council not just have checked this out with them.

This is a major faux pas for social work. The public have heard social work representatives in the media saying that someone can be prevented from  fostering eastern European children just because they belong to a certain political party. Whatever Guardian reading social workers might think this is not a fair reasonable point of view in the minds of most members of the public. It does not seem fair or reasonable to me as someone who believes in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Foster parents should be evaluated on the quality of their care and on their stated values and beliefs in so far as these are pertinent to the role. They should not be judged on assumptions about what they think or on mindreading. I have recently consulted service users about what they want from social workers. They are interested in the values and behaviours of workers- not on who they vote for.

Rotherham has made us all look ridiculous. They have let the profession down. They are either incompetent as a fostering authority or incompetent at PR or most likely both. The winners in this will be UKIP. The losers will be social work. The profession has handed its enemies another reason to exclude them from decisions about fostering and adoption policy. Yesterday's Times claimed that the situation will lead to a change in the law.

Stop defending the indefensible.  If you value the profession stand up for fairness and common sense.