Social workers sacked

So social workers who allowed Baby P to die get to keep their jobs, but those that forward an off-colour Gary Glitter email gag are sacked? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1088710/Social-workers-sacked-sick-image-paedophile-Gary-Glitter-carrying-child-shopping-bag.html

ALSO:

Jonathan Ross has been warned that when he returns to the BBC, his show must contain no swearing or sexually-suggestive content. Which means the show will last approximately 4 seconds. How ridiculous. Ross is so hugely-populr BECAUSE he's edgy. BECAUSE the audience don't know what he's going to say next. For f**k's sake they'll be bringing back Wogan next. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1088850/Jonathan-Ross-told-cut-smut-swearing-returns-BBC.html

Anyone else worried that we're quickly moving in to another era of stifling political correctness? Best start taking all those sexual references and ribald jokes out of your scripts people, Auntie Beeb is watching you...

Well in fairness they are two very diferent things.

But sacking is ridiculous and excessive.

Frankly I suspect they did it to prove a point, because unlike most investiagations this was an easy hit.

And if you're saying banning sexiness from the radio is PC.

The in essence you're saying the whiny Daily Mail complainers are PC.

There's an ocean of diference between finding Yid or f**k offensive.

The era of stifling political correctness has been around for a while. Comments that Ross makes to his guests could get you sacked in many workplaces.

I saw this coming didn't I, Lee? But would you listen? You called me a prude as I trawled your gutter born sketches nixing swear words with my big black marker. Now you see I'm simply a canny predictor of market trends.

Ribald!

We're probably going to move into another very conservative Victorian era. That's what happened after the very liberal and raunchy Georgian times.

I just read the article more fully.

They took the image from a child on the at risk register.

That's pretty serious, it does show a worrying degree of contempt for people in your care and would be hugely hurtful to the families involved.

Also any one stupid enough to not realise that councils throughly vet their online services.

Is so stupid they shouldn't be in charge of a biscuit barrel.

Quote: sootyj @ November 24 2008, 10:56 AM GMT

I just read the article more fully.

They took the image from a child on the at risk register.

That's pretty serious, it does show a worrying degree of contempt for people in your care and would be hugely hurtful to the families involved.

View original

My intitial thought was that it was a bit stupid of them to circulate it and they should have been reprimanded, but sacked?

But I did wonder where the image of the child came from. If the original photo-shopper used a photo of themself as a child then fine, but a real child at risk? That's pretty bad. I didn't like the picture anyway because the child looks so sad and helpless.

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 24 2008, 10:46 AM GMT

We're probably going to move into another very conservative Victorian era. That's what happened after the very liberal and raunchy Georgian times.

View original

Bloody hell Dolly, how old are you??? Have you got a police box in your back garden?

Quote: sootyj @ November 24 2008, 10:56 AM GMT

I just read the article more fully.

They took the image from a child on the at risk register.

That's pretty serious, it does show a worrying degree of contempt for people in your care and would be hugely hurtful to the families involved.

View original

Where does it say that Sooty?

All I can find is this: "A spokesman was forced to deny reports that the image of the youngster superimposed on the picture had been taken from the council's own register of 'at risk' children.

She said: 'It is totally untrue that images of children on South Lanarkshire Council's at risk register have been circulated in an email.

'We do not hold photographs of children on our at risk register. 'As of today a number of employees across the council have been dismissed and others have received final written warnings over the circulation of an email featuring the image of a child's face superimposed on a shopping bag carried by Gary Glitter.

'The image is one currently circulating throughout the United Kingdom.'

I mean imagine if you were the parent of that child?

If I was the manager I'd be concerned that this image had been circulated and no one had bothered to get back to me.

Quote: David Bussell @ November 24 2008, 10:45 AM GMT

I saw this coming didn't I, Lee? But would you listen? You called me a prude as I trawled your gutter born sketches nixing swear words with my big black marker. Now you see I'm simply a canny predictor of market trends.

Ribald!

View original

Ribald indeed!

Quote: Lee Henman @ November 24 2008, 10:38 AM GMT

So social workers who allowed Baby P to die get to keep their jobs, but those that forward an off-colour Gary Glitter email gag are sacked?

View original

This actually sounds like a line from the Daily Mail.

Oops my bad.

In which case this is rdiculous and an example of the paranoia that pervades so much social work.

The urge to be PC and appropriate chokes people's instincts.

Who makes these rules?

Quote: David Bussell @ November 24 2008, 10:45 AM GMT

I saw this coming didn't I, Lee? But would you listen? You called me a prude as I trawled your gutter born sketches nixing swear words with my big black marker. Now you see I'm simply a canny predictor of market trends.

Ribald!

View original

Ribaldi??? Didn't he play for Arsenal?

Quote: Marc P @ November 24 2008, 11:00 AM GMT

Bloody hell Dolly, how old are you??? Have you got a police box in your back garden?

View original

Perhaps I read too much history and 19th century novels. And my grandparents were born in the 1890s (my GRANDFATHER was in WW1), my great grandparents were born during the Irish potato famine, so it doesn't seem that long ago to me.