Monday, November 27, 2017
the ducks are taken to resus to quack again
Today tribes met
There was little or nothing achieved as I had suspected, the ‘armed forces’ were there to ‘cover up’ in utter grand scale.
Nothing is ever done in Ireland, well.
Nothing is simply ever done.
A case of sexual transgression was heard in 2010.
The complainant was a disabled lady in Ireland
The complainant was asked to write a good reference for the assailant so he could keep his job.
He kept his job.
Only a few years later, on advice the complainant reported this a second time in 2014.
This was ‘sat upon.’
Many registered letters were sent. It continued to be dismissed as never before being heard about until 2015.
By this time this case was complained about to the Department of Health, they noted the seriousness of it, and passed it on to the HSE. They barely acknowledged the offense and passed it on to the perpertrators bosses, who then smothered it until forced to look at it. It was also sent to the charities regulator who dismissed this as well.
No one was going to take charge of this I could tell.
Denial of complaint being made before 2015 is shocking.
It was made in 2010 and 2014.
What happened so?
In 2010 when it was brought to the attention of a very large organization funded by the state, the person who should know ‘policies on protection of vulnerable adults and children’ enticed the complainant to make no complaint but give a good reference.
Nothing was written down, it went no further.
The assailant continued his job.
In 2014 the complainant was in serious difficulties facing the wrath of the state in charge of healthcare services and was seriously depleted and on the verge of a breakdown.
Suicidal ideation was mentioned more than once.
Not a lot of help was offered at all.
Discussing one day the life and times of the individual the advocate advised the complainant to report, as this was considered serious.
assured today that once known the perpetrator was monitored.
But all concerned were not allowed know how or by who or by what method as his work was at the coal face ‘one to one’ and never ‘two plus one’
When the complaint was made in 2010 not only was it not written up as a serious incident (s) or reported to gardai, neither was the assailent suspended upon investigation nor was any higher superior officer ever told of what had occurred.
No investigation took place.
No superior officer was enlightened to the transaction of complaint.
The person to whom the complaint was made, mentioned in 2015 that they remembered it being reported in 2010 and this was brought to the attention of the next manager who met with complainant and the overseer of the assailent’s work load and job description.
This never happened and was effectively a lie.
This was confirmed by the investigator today, the manager had confirmed no such meeting had taken place.
We move forward.
The investigator informed a group today that the complaint was not brought to the attention of this superior officer, a very superior office, a CEO in fact until mid 2015.
Where was this complaint hiding when made again a few times in 2014 – 2016? Registered letters had been sent in.
Finally the investigation began and was completed within six months.
This was an incredible ‘tour de force’ of ineptness.
The complainant was never interviewed during the course of this time.
Six months is not a huge amount of time and for the complainant who was going through physical ill health and transport issues with a banjaxed van, missing four opportunites to meet to discuss doesn’t mean that the chance has flown and the investigation go on without the main witness.
Indeed, in the meantime the full HSE teams, both area managers – all area managers were informed, we are speaking of all managers including senior social workers.
No senior social worker approached the vulnerable adult.
No area manager of any description approached the vulnerable adult in this case during this period yet all were discussing the case.
It was known throughout social protection and further.
It was known to the department of health and considered a serious complaint by them.
It was known to the HSE officer who was in charge of vulnerable adult and child protection policy whose only remit he claims today was to make sure the organization got its ducks in a row in the future.
Where were the quacks in the past?
They were drowning but people were pulling the drowning ducks up and all were briefed and sent to resus and quacked again well and quaking.
The complainant still was not heard, seen, saw any individual from the department of health, the hse or the organization and it was hard to even get as far as discussing it all.
The complaint anyway was wrapped up neatly after the investigator felt that four attempts to meet was ample so wrapped it all up as duty of care had to be upheld for the accused.
Don’t mention the complainant who had a very good withess of the facts who also was not interviewed in this bizarre case.
It was heard that the case was handled very badly and all must learn a lesson from this but all spoke of moving on and forward and learn the big lesson.
The complainent has learnt a very big lesson, there is corruption at the coal face and finally caught all will agree it was badly handled, a few raps on knuckles and advice given that lessons are duly learnt.
We look to how the complainant tried to explain cause and effect and the intrigue and effect on her personality and psyche as she was torn to shreds by this organization.
The complainant, was told by the vulnerable adult and child officer that we were not there to discuss that but the actual complaint.
The complainant reminded the officer if a vulnerable adult was trashed then that had to be part in context with the way this was dealt with.
Capitulation of sorts, the complainant tearfully told her story.
But still we must move on and lessons must be learnt.
The humdinger of a lesson should be learnt I feel as we were all assured that the assessments and policies are far greater than in 2010, the complainant asked how so because less than a year ago the complainant received what can only be perceived as a rather strong and threatening rebuff from the organization that they would have to think seriously about the provision of care given to the vulnerable adult in light of the complaint.
So lesson here being – don’t bloody make a complaint again or you are out.
Or, shall we more likely say ‘you are now under our cloud and being watched and therefore we are taking stock as to whether we can deliver care to you.’
Or, which is another neat way of putting this, we interviewed everyone who ever worked with the complainant during this investigation – no idea why or what for or who and what questions were asked, but the victim wasn’t interviewed so that is also very threatening and ‘telling.’
This statement could be a bit of a porkie for the complainant swiftly asked all workers from this organization working for her had they been ‘approached.’ They had not. So again that was a statement designed to bring fear of gods to the vulnerable adult.
Where do we stand now.
They are looking at the language of the last paragraph of the investigation of the investigator statement that they would have to consider if care could be offered in light of the complaint made by one of their vulnerable adults about one of their staff’s transgression, which to all is considered serious.
The vulnerable adult and child protection officer said the case was not complex and his duty was to the organization, to ensure they had their ducks in a row, for the future.
Didn’t seem to care a toss about the complainant, a vulnerable adult.
He denied that.
The vulnerable adult may be vulnerable but she isn’t stupid.
So where was the area senior social worker and area manager in all of this – that is FOR the vulnerable adult, I guess their role was to support the organization to resus and get them quacking again as discussed above as discussed and discussed without any recourse to discuss or ever actually going to be discussed with the claimant.
Everyone walks on neatly and out.
That’s done and dusted to everyone’s satisfaction, but the complainant of course.
What the organization can do is apologise, they didn’t. they agreed the investigation was flawed, the outcome was ‘inconclusive.’
So if both should it be done again?
To set the record straight, or should we all learn from this and make sure mistakes will not happened again and no one will be threatened if they complain again.
A very quaked out country this.
A very fidgety vulnerable adult and child protection officer who admitted that perception of the client’s disabilities were being wrongly perceived.
He denied labeling the disabilities, until the client stated fact ‘how else can you claim calling a deaf person verbally abusive if they shout?’ is that labeling the disability or the client, or is this a case of mistaken perception or a hurt little boy being shouted at by a very deaf individual who he is chastising in the name of ‘I will not put up with being verbally abused.
Who talked about being verbally abused?
The complaint maker was distressed, is that abuse if she is very deaf.
Fast forward to labeling again of Asperger and brain damage in any which way other than Asperger and brain damage.
So the intelligent client complainer about sexual transgression suggests to this team in front of her that she would like the opportunity to set the record straight on labeling disability in all terms other than the person has a disability, one too many in fact.
All consider this a grand idea and have gone away to think about that as neat.
There was one very exhausted client,whose van had clapped out againand had to get home in the freezing cold in a open ended wheelchair.
The lesson has been learnt, but for one which lesson that is, is unclear.