Tuesday, August 29, 2006

On Social Workers


I hate them all. I don't care with whom they work or what their mandate happens to be, as far as I am concerned, they're all worthless.

Only, it's not initially their fault. They are constrained by bureaucratic mechanisms installed to protect them and their clients from legal repercussions. For example, no social worker will visit a child at the child's home without at least one other social worker being present. Ostensibly, that is to protect the child but in reality, it's to protect the worker from being falsely accused by the child.

Therein lies the problem. If they think the kids are not aware of that, they are insane. As soon as two adults arrive and start talking in official language, or even with an official sounding slant, that kid knows they're not on even footing and that tells me there will be no meeting of the minds in this exchange. That kid will be as defensive as he or she knows how to be.

Put the kid in the environment of the social worker's office and you take the kid out of his or her natural environment and what you get is a product of the office environment that has no basis in the day to day reality of the kid. In other words, it's a complete waste of time.

When I was involved with kids, I got down to their level. I invariably got covered in dirt, frequently got holes in my clothes, sometimes got spat on, often got a few bruises or scratches, had no dignity to speak of whatsoever. But I got results and I got them pretty quickly.

The naysayers all questioned my motives. Then, as now, my mantra was "Don't talk to me about it, talk to the kids themselves. If they don't like something, they'll tell you quick enough."

How the hell else would I know about this stupid social worker situation. I've heard the same stories from dozens of kids. I've read the stories in the newspapers, I've dealt with the bureacracy, with the workers and the courts.

I've also dealt with that variety who deal with adults. They're even worse. Since 1991, I've met only one 'social worker' whom I would deem worthy of respect and she was a counsellor, not a social worker per se.

Social workers who deal with adults also travel in pairs for the same safety reasons as do those who deal with kids. The adult victims of these insensible twats are also placed in an instantly adversarial environment, and unless knowledge is available of how to work the system, the adult will be as unwitting and unwilling a victim as any child "client" of the social worker brotherhood.

What's prompted this after a month's worth of absence?

Simple, I've been reading (and commented upon) the blog of a London Magistrate and one of his entries expresses his admiration for the work done by those who work with troubled youth.

Until now, I thought magistrates just grudgingly accepted and commended the work done by social workers. Now I see it's just possible that the judiciary actually believes those parasites are of some sort of benefit.

I am stunned and horrified.

I know from my dealings with the police that it's an unwritten code that one branch of the public service is forbidden to speak ill of any other branch of the public service - but I have friends in just about all branches of the public service and I am privy to the bitchiness and backstabbing which goes on every day. Each branch of the public service seems to know what EVERY member of the general public knows and will openly declare: that the public sector is fucked beyond belief.

Judges, it has long been held here in Victoria, have practically no idea of anything to do with the attitudes of the public at large and frequently utter such insane remarks as "She brought this violence on herself" that they simply have to be removed from the bench. And rightly so. It's one thing to hold such beliefs, but to express them and express them in a public forum - I wouldn't trust such an individual to make me a cup of coffee let alone decide on the fate of a fellow member of society. "He has shown genuine remorse..." FUCK OFF! The cunt did it because he felt it was a good thing for him to do. Of course he's going to show remorse, not for what he's done - but for getting caught. Blind Freddy can see that, why the hell can't a bloody judge see it?

I believe in rehabilitation. I don't believe in the death penalty at all or unduly long sentences for crimes against property. I dislike crimes against the person, however, and I would like to see punishments for these offences reflect my community's attitudes to such crimes. The community expects crimes against children to punished most severely of all - judges seldom see it that way.

Judges often see mitigating circumstances when there is a crime committed against a child. Remorse is one such example. In exactly the same way, judges buy any and all claptrap spouted by social workers who in one breath extol the progress the child has made, in order to appear like a hero to the child, then in the next breath complain about how the child repeatedly thwarts or sabotages all efforts to help.

Yet the judges buy it every time. As I said before, until now I just thought they had to buy it as part of their job description. The blog I just read confirms my worst fears.