IT'S IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST??!!
Let's talk about social workers.
Not to them - they don't have the mental dexterity to cope with such a concept.
No, I'm not bitter.
I've just never met a competent social worker. And, yes, I've met lots.
They are a peculiar breed and I say that in the same context as I'd say that slugs and snails are a peculiar breed. The analogy is striking in its simplicity and accuracy.
I think my old grandma summed it up when she said, "There are only two types of social worker I trust: a dead one; and a stone dead one."
And, even then, my old grandma was keeping her options open by adding, "And I'd have to fire the gun myself, several times, to make sure."
Now I don't, obviously, condone open and public violence towards social workers. Not at all.
I think it should be done in back alleys and away from as many witnesses as possible!
Some people may say that I'm bitter. They're not correct. I just have a healthy hatred of low-lifes, and I class social workers on a par with rapists, paedophiles, car-thieves and housebreakers.
The point I'm making is that social workers have the blood of thousands of innocents (metaphorically and literally) on their hands and they won't, don't or can't admit it. They have no concept of the misery that they cause.
I've, genuinely, lost count of the number of times a child has undergone severe torture and abuse of the most obscene and horrific kind (even worse than listening to the bollocks that social workers talk in 'case conferences'), only for it to transpire that the social services were involved in some form or other.
When the child's body is found, usually covered in bruises (and much, much worse) that are testament to years of prolonged abuse, the social workers bleat on and on and trot out the same old crap about the child being visited recently and showing no sign of maltreatment of any sort.
They'll usually add something like, "We interviewed child 'X' at their home with the parents present and we specifically asked the parents and the child if there were any problems. They all answered in the negative. We're at a loss to understand how child 'X' could possibly have manifested numerous fractures (some of them extremely old and healed) and been emaciated
to the point of starvation. The parents always took great care when we were present. They requested that we gave them at least two weeks notice, we assumed so that child 'X' didnt miss out on any education the parents always told us they took so seriously. They dressed child 'X' in lots of clothes and wouldn't even let them speak - we assumed in case they contracted a cold or laryngitis! We took this to characterise a healthy nuclear family unit with both unit elders and offspring being idyllically happy!!"
When confronted with overwhelming evidence that blows their cosy little fantasy right out of the water, they usually make the press release equivalent of shrugging the shoulders and say, "We make it our policy never to discuss specific cases in the event that anyone involved is traumatised in any way by a harsh word on our part!" OR "Well, that's another case which has
slipped through the safety net. We'll hold a case conference, tighten up our reviewing procedures, put more paperwork into place and take measures that will ensure that this doesn't happen again. The individual involved has been enrolled on an intensive training course and moved sideways - certainly not fired, we're not barbarians - into a position more in line with our rethought policy on child abuse."
Then it happens again.
And they bring out the above speech - presumably printed on something quite robust as it's wheeled out more often than the Queen Mother - and quote it as though it's something innovative.
What happens to the blind, deaf, feeble-minded arsehole who visited the child and family and never noticed anything?
(In all likelihood, they're the ones who wrote the speech that's brought out every time a tragedy happens.)
No investigation into their mental competence.
No tests to see what strain of vCJD they've suffered from all their lives.
No test for Alzheimers.
No apologies to the many people who suffer from their incompetence.
No internal enquiry to see what the hell they were doing when the child was being murdered virtually under their noses.
No demotion and sacking with disgrace.
When I had a 9 to 5 job, if I'd made a mistake that was considered severe I'd be sacked. No ifs, no buts.
Those are the tacit realities that most people face in the real world.
Not only that, I'd find it difficult to secure another position - especially if it was one with relative responsibility. My past and references would follow me round like Banquo's ghost!
But social workers?
When they make a mistake, it isnt a ruined job-lot of screws, nuts or bolts; it isn't a batch of meat pies that have to be thrown away; it isn't some lost paperwork which needs to be printed off again. It's a real life, and usually a child's.
Are these people for real?
When I was growing up, it was obvious to everyone in our street, and at my school, who the kids were who got belted, and which parents were a bit rough and ready.
It was plainly transparent, even when I was about eight or nine years old, which kids were the roughnecks who would probably end up living life on the wrong side of the law.
Times haven't changed that much.
Given some time observing a group, I can tell which ones, adult or child, are the toe-rags; the bullies; the mild-mannered; the victims of life and the opportunists who take without giving anything in return, and usually take from those around who are too polite or meek to protest.
I expect that most of you reading this have the same eye for humanity and know exactly where I'm coming from.
Except, that is, if you're a social worker.
So consumed are they with 'seeing all sides' of a 'dysfunctional' family's problems that they are blind to what is right under their noses: reality.
Their position (a position they jealously guard with secret memos and 'need-to-know' information) is that even the child-battering, home-breaking, car-thieving, paedophile who rapes while out on bail (supported and arranged by social workers) is vehemently defended with such platitudes and semantic wrangling as, "They have rights, too, you know!"
Well, in the words of a man who would have made the world's greatest social worker, in my opinion, "Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights!" *
They trot out tired clichés such as, "We don't hang people for murdering, torturing and hurting children, for fun, in a civilised world."
For once I find myself agreeing with social workers.
No, we don't do that to low-life, child-hurting scum. In a civilised world.
Oops! Minor point, I know - but:
WE DONT HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A FUCKING CIVILISED WORLD. FUCKWITS!
And we won't. Until the last do-gooder in the world is strangled with the slimy entrails of the last social worker in the world. And, for good measure, we hang every lawyer and solicitor, who defends low-lifes and scumbags, from the feet of the do-gooders, to make sure their necks are well and truly stretched.
Then, we can start arranging a civilised world.
And social workers will actually do what their name and title purports: work for the society, not for the people who choose to wreck it.
* Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry
is not too bothered who he offends. If it means that
someone sits up, takes notice and actually does something
to rid the country (preferably the world) of scumbags,
do-gooders, social workers and bleeding-heart
liberal-minded politicians, he'll go for it.
If you disagree with any of his comments - tough shit.
|On to next Rancid Rant||Back to Rants & General Comedy Contents Page|
|Back to Main Site Contents Page||Back to Home Page|
REACH PALMER ON PROZAC, SOMERS ON SERTRALINE BY CLICKING HERE