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.
Or?
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.
