onlycrazygal Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Can someone plz explain to me what happened on thread "boy diagnosed with Autism" ? I post the newspaper article, a few people reply, then I write my own experience (to join in the said discussion) as many people do.... Next thing BADDAD has a wobbly at me and the threads closed. If Ive broken some forum rules I apologize. Now and again threads can be a bit controversial and differences of opinion will surface based upon individual perceptions, but is that really a cause to be a tad oversensitive ? I would like to think people on here are openminded enough to disagree but still appreciate and respect one others views. like I stated there is good and bad in everything, It just so happens I agree with a few points others have made including you BADDAD. Corr Strewth Im totally at a loss ??????? GOODNIGHT, OCG xx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted January 12, 2009 A few comments: On balance, I would say it's reasonable to assume that any news item is more likely to be true than false, although I am aware of the issues around 'truth' and 'falsehood' in news reports. Assuming the news item OCG posted is a reasonably accurate account of the incident, I think it's also reasonable to assume that the mother in question did not have a high opinion of the SW's conduct. Given OCG's comment tagged to the news item, it's clear her experience of SWs hasn't been very positive either. Given the circumstances in the news item, it's quite likely that the 'social worker' was fulfilling the role of an educational welfare officer - whose job is essentially to ensure school attendance. In my experience, our local EWS has given inadequate, and sometimes inaccurate information to parents. Our EWO has shown a lack of knowledge in areas where I would expect her to have expertise. One local mum, with years of relevant experience, was thinking of applying for an EWO post and was given the opportunity to accompany an EWO for a morning. She was shocked at what she saw and didn't apply for the job. I have had many years of experience of working in a range of organisations. Bullying in the workplace is not uncommon and is well-documented. Sometimes organisations or management systems are set up in such a way that they result in bullying in spite of the good intentions of the people involved. I would maintain that the government's approach to public sector organisations does just this, by poor implementation of management by objectives (MBO). This is a very effective management system if implemented properly. The objectives (targets) are supposed to be set in consultation with the person expected to meet the target. Resources adequate for meeting the objective are then made available. What tends to happen with public sector targets is that the consultation is a highly constrained formality, the input from the person expected to meet the target is often ignored, and resources are inadequate. If the person with the target fails to meet it, they are then sanctioned, even if the reasons for failing to meet the target are not under their control. I am aware that it is easy to make sweeping generalisations based on a few personal experiences, and admit that I am guilty as charged. However, public online discussion forums are not courts of law, or research conferences, and hyperbola is a commonly used way of emphasising a point. I find it difficult to believe that anyone assumed from OCG's post that she believes, or was implying, that all social workers manhandle children. She was making a point, and inviting discussion. I feel there are some very serious issues around social work at present; social services departments have been underfunded and understaffed for years, and their role appears to be increasingly one of policing, rather than support. What interested me about the original post was why the social worker behaved as he did. Presumably he had no personal interest in whether or not the boy attended school - it's the parent's legal responsibility, not his - so I wondered whether he was under pressure from some other source. The obvious candidate is his employer. I thought this might be an interesting avenue to explore. I was clearly wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted January 12, 2009 We have always tried hard to avoid sweeping criticisms of specific professions on the forum, partly because it helps no one to demonise whole groups of people, and partly because we have parents here who work in SS, health and education. Kathryn closed the other thread with a clear explanation for her decision, and I don't think it should be sort of 'restarted' in another thread. Bid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Forgive me bid, I've only been using this forum actively for a couple of weeks, and I'm still feeling my way with conventions. Firstly, I'm not sure that making generalised comments about professions is necessarily demonising them, is it? Saying that social services were underfunded and understaffed implies no criticism of social workers, quite the opposite. Secondly, it sounds very much as if what you are suggesting is that any discussion of SS, health and education is best avoided on the forum. This could be counterproductive, because it's inadequacies in those systems which often cause problems for people with ASDs. Discussion of the problems could result in their being addressed - no discussion means we just have to put up with them. Having problems with the SS, health or education system doesn't mean that the people who work within the system are at fault - the inadequacies could be caused by solely under-resourcing - as is often the case. Would you advise me to avoid commenting on social services, health and education altogether? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlycrazygal Report post Posted January 12, 2009 If this forum does not allow for a person to share negative experiences by professionals, then I am deeply saddened that people feel this way as you stifle progress... Isnt this a forum where people can air how they feel in a safe environment amongst friends ? Or is it a forum for the positive experiences only ? I must agree with coolblue I need clear guidelines as to what I can and cannot say on this forum, thank you, OCG Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Hi OCG - I don't have any problem with people having 'opinions' - you may have notice i have a few myself! - but i do object to people using the forum to promote their own agendas. You have visited this forum over the past three years or so rarely contributing anything other than artciles or links that perpetuate your own (IMO) rather paranoid views about a system which seeks to seperate perfectly well cared for children from their perfectly adequate parents. You do so portraying yourself and your son as 'victims' of this oppressive regime, which, as I pointed out in the original thread, personalises it to such a degree that anyone 'challenging; that view is viewed as an aggressor (you can't have a victim without a bully, can you?) - which... surprise surprise... is exactly what seems to have happened in this case, and exactly what i predicted in the other thread. I had a distinct feeling of deja vu as soon as i saw the article you presented, wondering how quickly it would take for you to 'personalise' it. It turned out to be your second post. L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted January 12, 2009 A full explanation has already been given. The thread is not going to be re-opened. Any further threads on the topic will be deleted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
