Faulks even blamed the Dame for getting Private Eye on the case.....
Anyway, Faulks is in charge of safeguarding vulnerable children and young people so what could go wrong?
The other day one of her underlings in social services heard Kirstie Allsopp had allowed her 15-year-old son to go on an rail trip around Europe with a 16-year-old friend.
The trip was carefully supervised and the duo had a perfectly safe trip returning home full of excitement.
What they never expected was to get this message from a ill-educated K&C council social worker
Leaving aside the impertinence of putting yourself on first name terms and the lousy grammar the real question is what on earth has this life-enhancing trip to do with the council?
The real danger for 15-year-olds in this Royal Borough is getting back from school safely without gangs threatening them with knives and demanding their mobile phones or worse.
Social services need to focus on the real priority of ensuring that mad and bad parents don't kill/ brutalise their babies.
Sounds like this particular idiot rather liked the idea of pestering a celebrity!
With the council headcount soaring by 2000 over the last couple of years it seems that there are a few idle hands with bugger all to do but be a nuisance!
I thought Conservatives believed in personal liberty.
ReplyDeleteA highly responsible set of parents decide to allow their mature 15 year old to take a trip with a 16 year and some busybody tries to get involved.
ReplyDeleteFaulks is not very clever. Her other job is finding luxury homes for super rich foreigners
ReplyDeleteCampbell was desperate to find a well paid job for her totally unqualified friend.
ReplyDeleteIncredible...this council is massively overstaffed
ReplyDeleteIt is really unkind of this blog to continuously attack
ReplyDeleteCatherine. OK, so she may not be highly educated but she means well. Leave the girl alone. She tries here best despite not being always on top of things
I am on the side of Cllr Faulks. This Dame uses her press contacts to cause trouble in the national press. I am a friend of Scott Dylan who is being bullied by Barclays over their mistake in letting him have £13.7 m.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Faulks still takes her £45k allowance despite her Cadbury Trust money and her husband's huge salary. Being on the Council is a real money spinner. She is rich enough to refuse it.
ReplyDeleteMoney & Generous Allowances! That is the reason why Labour, Tory and Lib Dem Councillors are on the Council. Easy money - pure and simple. They will all tell you they are on the Council to serve the public.
DeleteOne former high profile Labour Councillor told me her kids would starve if the allowances were not paid.
We have had double dippers and triple dippers on the Hornton Street Gravy Train. Could mRs Faulks get 45K in a proper job?
I read the article, in the Mail on Sunday, and there was no mention of RBK&C being a foremost Tory council. Now, had Allsop lived in Hampstead, where the council is Camden, you can be sure that it'd be a bashing for them as a Labour council. 'Nanny state Labour' would have been in the headlines.
DeleteThe British Association of Social Workers (BASW) said widespread media coverage of the referral had lacked an appreciation of how ‘social work actually works’.
ReplyDeleteIt comes after Ms Allsopp shared on X last week that her son, who was then days away from his 16th birthday, had returned from a three-week interrailing trip in Europe with his 16-year-old friend.
She then revealed that Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council had informed her that the matter had been referred to social services.
The celebrity said the referral had made her ‘very angry’, although she said she did not want to appear critical of ‘amazing’ social services.
Officials had not seemed to understand that she was probably targeted by someone falsely alleging neglect, Ms Allsopp said.
The BASW has come out in support of the social worker, saying that they ‘did nothing wrong’ and explaining that ‘if a referral is made it must be acted on when certain criteria is met’.
The association added that while social services do receive malicious referrals, staff would not be able to determine if this were the case without making initial enquiries.
A Kensington and Chelsea council spokesperson said: ‘We take any referral we receive very seriously and we have a statutory responsibility for children under 18 years of age.’
BASW would come out with this self serving nonsense. It also comes out with all sorts of excuses when on repeated occasions a vulnerable baby is left with psycho parents who end up murdering the little thing. This social worker was enjoying every minute pissing off an upper-class celeb. I bet her little gang of fellow social workers had a real giggle over her stupid illiterate message. Get in with priority work instead of wasting time.
ReplyDeleteLocal authorities HAVE TO REACT TO ACCUSATIONS and cannot judge them to be false from afar. This takes up time that then isn’t spent on standard referrals.
DeletePlease don't repeat this sort of nonsense. The countless times concerned people have called social services to report an abused baby and no action taken has been well chronicled in the media. In this case it was clear a malicious report and the circumstances of no import.
DeleteHow confusing “Anonymous 30 August 2024 at 7:20” criticises social services for both doing too little and too much in one statement - make up your mind! Do you want more or less state involvement?
DeleteToo little on vital matters: too much on matters that don't matter. Can your pea sized brain not sense the difference?
Delete(1) Local authorities (inc. RBKC) have to react to all accusations. (2) LAs cannot judge accusations to be false before an assessment is made. (3) Only then can a decision be made on whether something is a "vital matter" or "doesn't matter".
DeleteCalling my brain "pea sized" does not give your postings credibility.
The facts were clear. There is no law against a 15 year accompanied by a 16 year going travelling in neighbouring countries or can your pea sized brain point us to any law?
Delete