Skip to main content

Snotty 'Social Work?'

So I looked up Norfolk County Council Adult Social Care and after finding how to get in touch; with some difficulty (directed to another page), I went onto that page. Got another button saying: “make support needs enquiry online.” Got another page with four buttons, one of which said “support needs.” On pressing that, got a form: “Support Needs Questionnaire & Enquiry.” After completing the form with difficulty (one of my support needs is help with essential Tremors, making typing problematic), I was contacted by a woman who said she was a “social worker” and, with an attitude I, as a northener, would describe as ‘snotty.’ she told me she would have to assess my “wants;” not my needs! I told her I was a retired social worker and had never come across such blatant rationing. After a lengthy debate centering on ‘needs’ and ‘wants,’ during which she was even more snotty, I told her to forget my application and switched off.

This statement is from the current working requirements of social workers. If these standards are not adhered to, social workers can be disciplined or even struck off, preventing them from practising anywhere. Professional Standards Guidance - ‘Social Work England’ Social workers embrace and promote the fundamental rights of all people. They recognise and respect the dignity and worth of everyone and support people to improve their life outcomes. To practise safely, it is essential for all social workers to know and comply with legal frameworks relevant to their work and obligations to protect and promote people’s rights. People should have access to the support and services they need in line with the Equality Act 2010, irrespective of aspects of their identity,...” Complaining (whistleblowing) about breaches of these professional standards protects others too. In spite of difficulties that could arise around evidence, I should have done just that. By not doing so, I failed others in need.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.