Was this paper ever sued?

Spaniel wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Just to give my opinion... while I see a lot of Kate, I also see in the photos of Maddie a resemblance to Gerry. She sometimes looks not as attractive as others and I put this down to her unfortuante link to her uncle coming through more than her likeness to her nice- looking Dad !

You do surprise me me russiandoll, but it's said "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It wouldn't do if we all saw the same, the poor blokes would be flattened in the crush!

I dont find men with flat heads, mean little mouths and darting eyes attractive, but of course attractiveness is far more than superficial looks, so maybe it's his manner that truely influences my judgement.

I will admit he's better looking than his brother, but that's like saying a swede is better looking than a turnip.

As we think he looks so different to his siblings, maybe a new thread is called for, regarding whether he was adopted.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

perhaps this is why the pj wanted the answer from kate to this question.

Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after?

Kololi wrote:

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

Edited to add: Do you really believe this Tiny - something that sounds a massive pile of pooh?

perhaps this is why the pj wanted the answer from kate to this question.

Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after?

Tiny, how would the PJ even know this?

Social Workers are bound by confidentiality so unless Mr or Mrs McCann shouted it from the rooftops whilst on holiday there is no way, other than via a breach of confidentiality that they would have known even and I say it's a big even under the circumstances it was likely to be true.

Spaniel wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

I think you should become a Roman Catholic Kololi, the first ever not needing to confess as you are so righteous.

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

Edited to add: Do you really believe this Tiny - something that sounds a massive pile of pooh?

perhaps this is why the pj wanted the answer from kate to this question.

Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after?

Tiny, how would the PJ even know this?

Social Workers are bound by confidentiality so unless Mr or Mrs McCann shouted it from the rooftops whilst on holiday there is no way, other than via a breach of confidentiality that they would have known even and I say it's a big even under the circumstances it was likely to be true.

kololi,the pj know more than you and i,Perhaps after Madeleine,s abduction(which by the way i dont believe) this social worker got on to the pj with this vital piece of info(if true) or perhaps one of the tapas friends told them or one of the mccann or healy family,who knows,as its not in the files that we have, then we cant say if it is true or not.

Kololi wrote:

Spaniel wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

I think you should become a Roman Catholic Kololi, the first ever not needing to confess as you are so righteous.

Oh Spainiel!

I point out something that every half brained Brit knows to be true and you resort to spite and sarcasm?

If understanding the rules of confidentiality makes me righteous then so be it. Personally I have always just considered it to be part of my duty in my work and not some great holy gift that has only been endowed upon me. Let's hope that you don't come from a health and social care type background. I would hate to be reading all about your clients' problems or patients' illnesses on here next week simply because you think only the righteous should maintain confidentiality.

I didn't need to read files or ghoulishly study photos of a missing child to know that what was said in that quote was either a load of tosh or a breach of a professional's code of conduct regarding confidentiality. If it was the latter I do really hope they lost their jobs for starting what appears to be a potentially nasty rumour on the internet.

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'anut nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicitive face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Estelle wrote:I was assured that both stories were true as I sent pms to both members privately who assured me it was true. This was in 2007 when I was doubting that Gerry was the father myself. These members were on different forums.

Spaniel wrote:

Kololi wrote:

Spaniel wrote:

Kololi wrote:"A forum member told me once that Kate had told neighbours that Maddie was adopted. Also, another forum member claimed to me in 2007 that she was a friend of a Social Worker in Leicestershire who told her that Gerry McCann phoned her one day to arrange to have Maddie adopted but she talked him out of it. When she heard what had happened to Maddie later, she became very depressed as she felt responsible and then she had a nervous breakdown due to the guilt she suffered and di not work for three months."

Just curious after reading this but is there not an issue surrounding confidentiality here?

And if it does happen to be true I do hope this Social Worker lost her job for breaching confidentiality.

I think you should become a Roman Catholic Kololi, the first ever not needing to confess as you are so righteous.

Oh Spainiel!

I point out something that every half brained Brit knows to be true and you resort to spite and sarcasm?

If understanding the rules of confidentiality makes me righteous then so be it. Personally I have always just considered it to be part of my duty in my work and not some great holy gift that has only been endowed upon me. Let's hope that you don't come from a health and social care type background. I would hate to be reading all about your clients' problems or patients' illnesses on here next week simply because you think only the righteous should maintain confidentiality.

I didn't need to read files or ghoulishly study photos of a missing child to know that what was said in that quote was either a load of tosh or a breach of a professional's code of conduct regarding confidentiality. If it was the latter I do really hope they lost their jobs for starting what appears to be a potentially nasty rumour on the internet.

Sorry kololi, I was a grouch yesterday and the remark about confession was as much about my bad memories of it as a child, as anything else.

As for confidentiality, no I've never had a job where it was required, but I instinctively know not to pass on sensitive or confidential information. In fact if anyone asked me to keep something secret I'd feel rather offended that they even needed to state it. Apologies again.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'anut nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicitive face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'anut nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicitive face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

what you seem to forget kololi is that Madeleine body is still missing and to my mind if it helps find Madeleine then tittle tattle or not, i say good on this social worker and i hope some thing like this prompted the pj to ask kate the question, which she refused to answer anyway.

If this is true,then it could be a motive

Kololi wrote:

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'anut nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicitive face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

what you seem to forget kololi is that Madeleine body is still missing and to my mind if it helps find Madeleine then tittle tattle or not, i say good on this social worker and i hope some thing like this prompted the pj to ask kate the question, which she refused to answer anyway.

If this is true,then it could be a motive

She is indeed still missing Tiny.

Put yourself in the McCanns' shoes for a moment. Child missing and interest created all around the world. Forums are born discussing this and somebody on one of these forums happens to tell a mate who tells a mate who types it on a forum that she has a mate who is a Social Worker and oneday this Social Worker mate got a phone call from your husband telling her that you wanted to put your child up for adoption.

The Social Worker isn't helping find your missing child because it appears she hasn't gone to the Police about her concerns, she has told a gossipy friend who has then written it all over the internet and, if it's not actually true that you did want to put your child up for adoption, created a very nasty lie about you for all to read.

What sort of Social Worker worth their salt would do that Tiny?

I will bow out of this one because it is something that I just cannot believe to be true - not the Social Worker part, nor that Mr McCann actually made that phone call. I am happy to accept that we have a difference of opinion on this one Tiny.

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

Kololi, no the social worker wasn't hauled over any coals. It would have been his word against mine and my son's, and unless you want life to become VERY difficult, you do NOT make complaints against these people. Vindictive doesn't cover it.
BUT - that is all irrelevant.
The bit in red - please re-read the first paragraph of my post. I'll make it easy and put it here for you;

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

It has nothing to do with tittle tattle. Nothing you tell a doctor, a teacher, a counsellor, a social worker is at all confidential if they believe a child to be at risk. They all are what as known as 'mandatory reporters' in that if they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or other risk, it is an offence not to share it with appropriate agencies, eg police. No tittle tattle required - merely 'doing their jobs'. Indeed, one of the criticisms by Lord Laming after the Baby P debacle was the lack of 'multi-agency sharing' of information.
Believe me, Kololi - its not confidential when Child Protection is involved (and a missing child certainly comes under that umbrella)

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:

tiny wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'anut nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicitive face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

what you seem to forget kololi is that Madeleine body is still missing and to my mind if it helps find Madeleine then tittle tattle or not, i say good on this social worker and i hope some thing like this prompted the pj to ask kate the question, which she refused to answer anyway.

If this is true,then it could be a motive

She is indeed still missing Tiny.

Put yourself in the McCanns' shoes for a moment. Child missing and interest created all around the world. Forums are born discussing this and somebody on one of these forums happens to tell a mate who tells a mate who types it on a forum that she has a mate who is a Social Worker and oneday this Social Worker mate got a phone call from your husband telling her that you wanted to put your child up for adoption.

The Social Worker isn't helping find your missing child because it appears she hasn't gone to the Police about her concerns, she has told a gossipy friend who has then written it all over the internet and, if it's not actually true that you did want to put your child up for adoption, created a very nasty lie about you for all to read.

What sort of Social Worker worth their salt would do that Tiny?

I will bow out of this one because it is something that I just cannot believe to be true - not the Social Worker part, nor that Mr McCann actually made that phone call. I am happy to accept that we have a difference of opinion on this one Tiny.

We dont know if this s/w went to the police or not.Also the mccanns have told nasty lies about a few people that are all over the internet for all to read that are not actually true,but i expect thats sits ok with you.

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

Kololi, no the social worker wasn't hauled over any coals. It would have been his word against mine and my son's, and unless you want life to become VERY difficult, you do NOT make complaints against these people. Vindictive doesn't cover it.
BUT - that is all irrelevant.
The bit in red - please re-read the first paragraph of my post. I'll make it easy and put it here for you;

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

It has nothing to do with tittle tattle. Nothing you tell a doctor, a teacher, a counsellor, a social worker is at all confidential if they believe a child to be at risk. They all are what as known as 'mandatory reporters' in that if they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or other risk, it is an offence not to share it with appropriate agencies, eg police. No tittle tattle required - merely 'doing their jobs'. Indeed, one of the criticisms by Lord Laming after the Baby P debacle was the lack of 'multi-agency sharing' of information.
Believe me, Kololi - its not confidential when Child Protection is involved (and a missing child certainly comes under that umbrella)

Point taken although if they promise to maintain confidentiality before hearing what there is to hear, they have shot themselves in the foot. However, and you probably guessed there would be a however, Estelle's post doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that a Social Worker told a pal of the woman who works at Tescos who told the man next door who told his aunt fanny who told somebody on a forum that blah de blah de blah. That is not multi agency sharing in the slightest. Multi agency sharing would be done far more professionally like through a review meeting of the relevant professionals involved. Last time I attended a safeguarding meeting only relevant professionals were invited, not gossippy blabber mouths who were totally unrelated to the case in hand. I am guessing that she either made it up totally or the Social Worker needs her backside kicking for such a blatant breach of confidentiality to a gossippy mate who then blabbed it all over a forum, if indeed Mr McCann ever did make that phone call of course, which personally, in my opinion, I don't believe he did. How was telling a blabby mouthed mate going to help in this multi agency care approach that Madeleine should have received if it was true?

And I am sorry that you have no faith in your own Social Services. I find it a big eye opener to read that somebody would be scared to follow the complaints procedure if necessary for fear of vindictive fall out. Makes me proud of the Social Services dept that I worked for as any complaints that we received were taken seriously and dealt with promptly and in a discrete and supportive way.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

Kololi, no the social worker wasn't hauled over any coals. It would have been his word against mine and my son's, and unless you want life to become VERY difficult, you do NOT make complaints against these people. Vindictive doesn't cover it.
BUT - that is all irrelevant.
The bit in red - please re-read the first paragraph of my post. I'll make it easy and put it here for you;

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

It has nothing to do with tittle tattle. Nothing you tell a doctor, a teacher, a counsellor, a social worker is at all confidential if they believe a child to be at risk. They all are what as known as 'mandatory reporters' in that if they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or other risk, it is an offence not to share it with appropriate agencies, eg police. No tittle tattle required - merely 'doing their jobs'. Indeed, one of the criticisms by Lord Laming after the Baby P debacle was the lack of 'multi-agency sharing' of information.
Believe me, Kololi - its not confidential when Child Protection is involved (and a missing child certainly comes under that umbrella)

Point taken although if they promise to maintain confidentiality before hearing what there is to hear, they have shot themselves in the foot. However, and you probably guessed there would be a however, Estelle's post doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that a Social Worker told a pal of the woman who works at Tescos who told the man next door who told his aunt fanny who told somebody on a forum that blah de blah de blah. That is not multi agency sharing in the slightest. Multi agency sharing would be done far more professionally like through a review meeting of the relevant professionals involved. Last time I attended a safeguarding meeting only relevant professionals were invited, not gossippy blabber mouths who were totally unrelated to the case in hand. I am guessing that she either made it up totally or the Social Worker needs her backside kicking for such a blatant breach of confidentiality to a gossippy mate who then blabbed it all over a forum, if indeed Mr McCann ever did make that phone call of course, which personally, in my opinion, I don't believe he did. How was telling a blabby mouthed mate going to help in this multi agency care approach that Madeleine should have received if it was true?

And I am sorry that you have no faith in your own Social Services. I find it a big eye opener to read that somebody would be scared to follow the complaints procedure if necessary for fear of vindictive fall out. Makes me proud of the Social Services dept that I worked for as any complaints that we received were taken seriously and dealt with promptly and in a discrete and supportive way.

You know I was talking about a possible way the PJ were told which led to their question to Kate. I wasn't referring to the bits on forums.

As for my faith in social services, I don't have faith in any of them! What I actually think of the whole system is not printable, to be perfectly frank. Bullies, cowards, and that's the good ones - babies are dying, and will continue to die whilst parents who would never harm a hair on their child's head are hassled because maybe their garden is overgrown, or they maybe are a bit 'different'. Single mums seem to be a favourite target, Mums with big scary boyfriends (a la Baby P) much less so. That is the best thing I have to say about any of them.
My heart breaks every time another child is reported dead, and I can't help wondering which unlucky people were being hounded when the really abused children with evil parents are just left to rot.
Off soapbox now. I could write much much more, but nobody is interested I'm sure!

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

Kololi, no the social worker wasn't hauled over any coals. It would have been his word against mine and my son's, and unless you want life to become VERY difficult, you do NOT make complaints against these people. Vindictive doesn't cover it.
BUT - that is all irrelevant.
The bit in red - please re-read the first paragraph of my post. I'll make it easy and put it here for you;

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

It has nothing to do with tittle tattle. Nothing you tell a doctor, a teacher, a counsellor, a social worker is at all confidential if they believe a child to be at risk. They all are what as known as 'mandatory reporters' in that if they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or other risk, it is an offence not to share it with appropriate agencies, eg police. No tittle tattle required - merely 'doing their jobs'. Indeed, one of the criticisms by Lord Laming after the Baby P debacle was the lack of 'multi-agency sharing' of information.
Believe me, Kololi - its not confidential when Child Protection is involved (and a missing child certainly comes under that umbrella)

Point taken although if they promise to maintain confidentiality before hearing what there is to hear, they have shot themselves in the foot. However, and you probably guessed there would be a however, Estelle's post doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that a Social Worker told a pal of the woman who works at Tescos who told the man next door who told his aunt fanny who told somebody on a forum that blah de blah de blah. That is not multi agency sharing in the slightest. Multi agency sharing would be done far more professionally like through a review meeting of the relevant professionals involved. Last time I attended a safeguarding meeting only relevant professionals were invited, not gossippy blabber mouths who were totally unrelated to the case in hand. I am guessing that she either made it up totally or the Social Worker needs her backside kicking for such a blatant breach of confidentiality to a gossippy mate who then blabbed it all over a forum, if indeed Mr McCann ever did make that phone call of course, which personally, in my opinion, I don't believe he did. How was telling a blabby mouthed mate going to help in this multi agency care approach that Madeleine should have received if it was true?

And I am sorry that you have no faith in your own Social Services. I find it a big eye opener to read that somebody would be scared to follow the complaints procedure if necessary for fear of vindictive fall out. Makes me proud of the Social Services dept that I worked for as any complaints that we received were taken seriously and dealt with promptly and in a discrete and supportive way.

You know I was talking about a possible way the PJ were told which led to their question to Kate. I wasn't referring to the bits on forums.

As for my faith in social services, I don't have faith in any of them! What I actually think of the whole system is not printable, to be perfectly frank. Bullies, cowards, and that's the good ones - babies are dying, and will continue to die whilst parents who would never harm a hair on their child's head are hassled because maybe their garden is overgrown, or they maybe are a bit 'different'. Single mums seem to be a favourite target, Mums with big scary boyfriends (a la Baby P) much less so. That is the best thing I have to say about any of them.
My heart breaks every time another child is reported dead, and I can't help wondering which unlucky people were being hounded when the really abused children with evil parents are just left to rot.
Off soapbox now. I could write much much more, but nobody is interested I'm sure!

I understood what you were referring to Rainbow-fairy. I am not actually as green as you sometimes appear to think I am! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However, we do not know that the Social Worker went to the Police because we have nothing that indicates that she did and that is how rumours start that later become "gospel". We have only been told that a Social Worker told her mate who then wrote it on a forum and "confirmed" it was true in a pm to Estelle. I WILL be a big bore and keep repeating that like it is a mantra until the penny drops meaning that a new fairytale is NOT invented simply because of all of the things I have read on this forum, I find this the most disgusting rumour of all. Anybody who is a Granny here should have a conscience or some heart enough to not allow that piece of garbage to become "fact".

I could push you off your soap box and steal it for a few seconds but my venom would be against the government and councils that have billions in reserve that would help balance the deficit so that frontline services such as Social Workers weren't being cut. They could go and do their jobs then with the time that they need to do them properly and with the support that they need when seeing some pretty harrowing cases and without fear of being damned if they do and damned if they don't. But that's a whole different ballgame and one that is best saved for a "putting the world to rights" topic.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Kololi wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well what is certain is that the PJ didn't pull that question out of thin air or asked it because 'aunt nellies cleaners dog' told them.
In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.
Remember, these were carefully prepared questions, using intelligence gathered from May 3rd.
Just as an aside, when I took my eldest out of school to teach him myself, we had a routine visit to check everything. My son knows who his dad is, but doesn't know him as his dad last saw him a ten weeks.
Out of nowhere, this 'bound by confidentiality' worker announced 'Yes - I know your dad, Mr **** **** ' I was so taken aback, I just said, 'What do you think?' He pulled a very indicative face then added the gem 'Yes, off the record, **** is better off not seeing his dad at all'. Son was there at the time!
If that is not a serious breach, (and this was just a routine case) I don't know what is. Why do they do it? Boasting? A kind of "I know things you don't know" kind of thing. I don't know.
But they are not as 'confidential' as the rules would suggest.

Despite any differences of opinion that you and I have Rainbow-fairy, I hope that that Social Worker, if he/she breached your right to his confidentiality was hauled over the coals.

I agree with you that the PJ probably didn't pull that question out of thin air. So where did it come from? Some Social Worker who thought she would have a little tittle tattle about things said to her in confidence?

Kololi, no the social worker wasn't hauled over any coals. It would have been his word against mine and my son's, and unless you want life to become VERY difficult, you do NOT make complaints against these people. Vindictive doesn't cover it.
BUT - that is all irrelevant.
The bit in red - please re-read the first paragraph of my post. I'll make it easy and put it here for you;

"In cases where child protection is an issue (and it doesn't come much bigger than this) Social Services are duty-bound to share any information they hold with other agencies, eg police.

It has nothing to do with tittle tattle. Nothing you tell a doctor, a teacher, a counsellor, a social worker is at all confidential if they believe a child to be at risk. They all are what as known as 'mandatory reporters' in that if they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or other risk, it is an offence not to share it with appropriate agencies, eg police. No tittle tattle required - merely 'doing their jobs'. Indeed, one of the criticisms by Lord Laming after the Baby P debacle was the lack of 'multi-agency sharing' of information.
Believe me, Kololi - its not confidential when Child Protection is involved (and a missing child certainly comes under that umbrella)

Point taken although if they promise to maintain confidentiality before hearing what there is to hear, they have shot themselves in the foot. However, and you probably guessed there would be a however, Estelle's post doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that a Social Worker told a pal of the woman who works at Tescos who told the man next door who told his aunt fanny who told somebody on a forum that blah de blah de blah. That is not multi agency sharing in the slightest. Multi agency sharing would be done far more professionally like through a review meeting of the relevant professionals involved. Last time I attended a safeguarding meeting only relevant professionals were invited, not gossippy blabber mouths who were totally unrelated to the case in hand. I am guessing that she either made it up totally or the Social Worker needs her backside kicking for such a blatant breach of confidentiality to a gossippy mate who then blabbed it all over a forum, if indeed Mr McCann ever did make that phone call of course, which personally, in my opinion, I don't believe he did. How was telling a blabby mouthed mate going to help in this multi agency care approach that Madeleine should have received if it was true?

And I am sorry that you have no faith in your own Social Services. I find it a big eye opener to read that somebody would be scared to follow the complaints procedure if necessary for fear of vindictive fall out. Makes me proud of the Social Services dept that I worked for as any complaints that we received were taken seriously and dealt with promptly and in a discrete and supportive way.

You know I was talking about a possible way the PJ were told which led to their question to Kate. I wasn't referring to the bits on forums.

As for my faith in social services, I don't have faith in any of them! What I actually think of the whole system is not printable, to be perfectly frank. Bullies, cowards, and that's the good ones - babies are dying, and will continue to die whilst parents who would never harm a hair on their child's head are hassled because maybe their garden is overgrown, or they maybe are a bit 'different'. Single mums seem to be a favourite target, Mums with big scary boyfriends (a la Baby P) much less so. That is the best thing I have to say about any of them.
My heart breaks every time another child is reported dead, and I can't help wondering which unlucky people were being hounded when the really abused children with evil parents are just left to rot.
Off soapbox now. I could write much much more, but nobody is interested I'm sure!

I understood what you were referring to Rainbow-fairy. I am not actually as green as you sometimes appear to think I am! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However, we do not know that the Social Worker went to the Police because we have nothing that indicates that she did and that is how rumours start that later become "gospel". We have only been told that a Social Worker told her mate who then wrote it on a forum and "confirmed" it was true in a pm to Estelle. I WILL be a big bore and keep repeating that like it is a mantra until the penny drops meaning that a new fairytale is NOT invented simply because of all of the things I have read on this forum, I find this the most disgusting rumour of all. Anybody who is a Granny here should have a conscience or some heart enough to not allow that piece of garbage to become "fact".

I could push you off your soap box and steal it for a few seconds but my venom would be against the government and councils that have billions in reserve that would help balance the deficit so that frontline services such as Social Workers weren't being cut. They could go and do their jobs then with the time that they need to do them properly and with the support that they need when seeing some pretty harrowing cases and without fear of being damned if they do and damned if they don't. But that's a whole different ballgame and one that is best saved for a "putting the world to rights" topic.

Nobody was stating anything as fact. It was clearly a 'rumour' as far as the forum is concerned.
My point was, the PJ would not ask this question on the basis of a 'rumour'.

I did wonder when the 'damned if they do, damed if they don't' rot would come out.
You just bet they are damned when they harrass the poor single mum with perfect kids because her grass is overgrown a little, but maybe three doors up knowingly leave a child suffering because the mum is scary, the big boyfriend is worse still and the big Rottie seals the deal - they scurry back to the easy target. It happens over and over and is nothing to do with funding. P-lease.
You and I will never agree on this one, not even close.
So best we do stop this now, for the good of the forum if nothing else.
I can be noble - see!