• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Social workers are the worst scum on earth."

Collapse

  • Old Hack
    replied
    In the main, I think SW's have a rum deal of things; most are overworked, and undermanaged. I know a couple who seem good people, genuinely good folk, but who drink a lot os they have a lot of tulip on their plate. I'd not do the job for the world, as I think I'd end up too depressed; for every screw up you read about, there are hundreds of successes. Yes, there will be people on power trips, as that's just a statistical fact, but I'd not tar all of them with teh same brush. Most, in my opinion, are good honest folk trying to a very, very difficult job.

    However, if they took my kids, or attempted to, well, there would be trouble, so I am with you there BP.

    As an aside, if you declare yourself as a freeman, you absolve yourself of the requirement to abide by any social workers laws, legally. I haven't gone into it much, but based on a few days reading, it's an interesting area, as is Chapter 7 on housing.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    It further turned out that Ellie had a cyst in her throat which Mr Butler had pushed out of the way when he cleared her airway after she collapsed. The cyst is clearly visible on a scan taken in hospital, but it was not shown to the original jury.

    While awaiting trial the Family Court ruled Mr Butler could see Ellie twice a year for four hours.

    Miss Gray, a graphic designer, was allowed contact with her baby six times a year for two hours at a time.
    So the prosecution should be debarred and the doctors struck off? Seems reasonable to me, after such a travesty.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    The family I know, the kids were taken from the mother to live with the father despite claims the father was abusing them sexually. Based on the CUK tradition of using a single data point to make a sweeping generalisation, it's therefore sexist against women.
    And I have met around 100 guys who have been treated badly by the SS. So stick them up your 4rse twunty.

    Originally posted by escapeUK View Post
    People all think they are doing a needed positive job. I was talking to a tax collector the other day, who told genuinely thought he kept society running.
    At least my ex-wife was honest. She is a tax collector. They did f**k all and treat everyone like dirt. They ignore the tough targets and go after easy pickings - like Branngian vs s58.

    Leave a comment:


  • escapeUK
    replied
    People all think they are doing a needed positive job. I was talking to a tax collector the other day, who told genuinely thought he kept society running.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Cliphead View Post
    They don't need to be fcked up either, shouldn't they do some psychological testing on these 'well meaning, want to help people' candidates before they're let loose on the most vulnerable?
    Maybe they have to take the best of a bad bunch?

    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    The CAtholic church has changed. But SWs are still institutionally sexist.
    The family I know, the kids were taken from the mother to live with the father despite claims the father was abusing them sexually. Based on the CUK tradition of using a single data point to make a sweeping generalisation, it's therefore sexist against women.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by formant View Post
    Very true. I was merely agreeing with the institutional sexism bit relating to those social workers dealing with children. I saw that BP had since realised that socialworker on here isn't that kind of social worker.
    True. BUt I am not going to apologize. Not after the sh1t I had to put up with.

    Leave a comment:


  • formant
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I'm sure you're probably right that social workers do, in most cases, favour giving a mother custody rather than the father. However it's not just social workers that are 'institutionally sexist' - just look at the stick you got in the other thread for wanting to return to work immediately after having your baby. Would your partner get the same questions? Social workers (and the courts) are reflecting the gender role stereotypes of wider society.
    Two sides of the same coin. The difference is that it's a social worker's job to make the best decision for the child/children in question. Whenever they back the residence application of a violent and abusive or otherwise unstable mother against that of a perfectly reasonable and decent father, they're completely and utterly failing to do their job. And that happens more than I'd like to think about. So yeah, of course it's a societal problem, but the average member of society doesn't have the level of responsibility to make critical, life-altering, and in many cases truly destructive decisions about others on the basis of that very sexism.

    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I don't think that justifies laying into a new forum member because of his/her job. It would be a lot more constructive to ask questions about the processes and attitudes.
    Very true. I was merely agreeing with the institutional sexism bit relating to those social workers dealing with children. I saw that BP had since realised that socialworker on here isn't that kind of social worker.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I'm sure you're probably right that social workers do, in most cases, favour giving a mother custody rather than the father. However it's not just social workers that are 'institutionally sexist' - just look at the stick you got in the other thread for wanting to return to work immediately after having your baby. Would your partner get the same questions? Social workers (and the courts) are reflecting the gender role stereotypes of wider society.
    +1

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by Cliphead View Post
    Same could be said for most of the regulars on here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cliphead
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I think the majority are disfunctional and need their own prejudices, attitudes and mental health issues examined.

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    I'm sure you're probably right that social workers do, in most cases, favour giving a mother custody rather than the father. However it's not just social workers that are 'institutionally sexist' - just look at the stick you got in the other thread for wanting to return to work immediately after having your baby. Would your partner get the same questions? Social workers (and the courts) are reflecting the gender role stereotypes of wider society.

    I don't think that justifies laying into a new forum member because of his/her job. It would be a lot more constructive to ask questions about the processes and attitudes.

    Social workers do a lot more than sort out access in marriage break ups. They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't. I think the majority are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • formant
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    To counterbalance BP's experience, I've had dealings with social workers twice - both times they could not have done more to help with the situation.
    If this was in any way related to child contact or residence, I can pretty much guarantee you that you wouldn't have had that positive an experience if you were the father rather than the mother.

    Which, I guess, falls under the 'institutional sexism' thing.

    I mostly agree with BP. My experience is limited to the CAFCASS variety of social worker. F-tards.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    And another success for social workers - First Christmas with his girls for father wrongly jailed for child cruelty | Mail Online

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I would feel aggrieved at the individuals involved... I know people who have kids taken away (I think wrongly) by SWs and I don't think that some bad individuals mean it's an evil system. It's just like when people label any Catholic priest as suspect.
    The CAtholic church has changed. But SWs are still institutionally sexist.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZARDOZ
    replied
    To be fair The word ends at Minestrone's front door. To paraphrase, he and his wife are ace, they are exceptionally clever and have excellent taste, everyone else is a feckless, tasteless, idiot, and he despises them. I could be wrong but that's how his posts come across.
    Last edited by ZARDOZ; 23 December 2012, 21:59.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X