Recording meetings and visits
I would advise that you record all meetings and conversations with Social Services however I would not advise that you tell them. The situation is if they have nothing to hide and are working in an open and honest way they should not object but they do.
As they were aware that I recorded they used to search my pockets for recording devices and check my phone was switched off when i went to their offices. They have no authorisation to search you but I allowed them too as all the time I had a dictaphone stuck down my bra so was able to record them searching me.
Luckily my judge allowed my recordings in court . I had burned them off onto seperate Cds copies given to all parties.
Recording someone without their consent is not usually admissable unless you transcribe the recording however for home visits you can record anyone in your own home without asking them for permission under Section 36 of the Data Protection Act headed under domestic purposes.
Data Protection Act 1998 Section 36 Domestic purposes. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles.
Maybe the below article can demonstrate why social workers are so fearful, maybe they are scared of being exposed for lying or being vexatious.
Believe me they can be vexatious and are so protected by the state or by using’childs best interest’ as a smokescreen for hiding their true intentions behind their decisions that I question whether some of them have psychopathic disorders .
A social worker can take a dislike to you or maybe they have got into trouble over a complaint you have made or some other exposure of their behaviour and you have had it !!!!
Whats in the best interest of the child goes out the window as the social worker is then so biased and intent to exact her/ his revenge that the child in their eyes becomes nothing more than a useful tool in which to utilise to cause you distress in the same way as a vexatious ex partner will use a child to get back at a partner by ceasing all contact, turning the child against the absent parent etc.
There certainly does need to be an independent body to look at the conduct of some of these social workers made up partly of parents and service users like the man below who will not be blinkered by the fact that social workers are ‘ professionals ‘ and do not behave like that.
In all professions their are bad eggs look at bent police officers , crooked lawyers , etc what makes social workers any different ? On this site there is a list of social workers that have been struck off quite a long list.
IT is a very powerful role they have . If you are a victim of a vexatious social worker the odds are stacked against you.
First you have to get someone to believe that such a professional has acted vexatiously which noone will lets face it who will believe your word over a social workers ?
secondly if you make an internal complaint the local authority will back the social worker up .
thirdly if you try to take the matter to an outside agengy the process will take so long you could have ended up losing a child to adoption or foster care and had contact etc stopped . All based on the decisions and reports written by this vexatious person.
The poor child is used as a weapon to exact their twisted revenge on you.
Anyway back to the article below shows why you should record social workers and far from them saying you are not supposed to remember this judge did not have a problem with it being used as evidence !
and i say it again to social workers ‘ IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR ‘
Dictaphone saves man from prison
Secret tape recording clears him of charges brought by social services
A MAN who was cleared of all charges after secretly recording a meeting with social workers on his dictaphone, has called for an independent team to monitor social workers.
Lovel Brian Dennis was accused of affray, threat to kill, assault and criminal damage, stemming from two separate encounters with social workers from Hackney Council’s Learning and Disability department as he tried to get social services to let him take care of his brother, who has Downs Syndrome.
Dennis was accused of swearing and threatening council officials in the first encounter, while in the second he was alleged to have pushed a social worker against a wall.
However, due to evidence from his recordings and conflicting testimony from a prosecution witness, Dennis was found not guilty last month at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London.
A relieved Dennis told The Voice: “This is the wisest £50 I’ve ever spent in my life, because if I didn’t spend this £50, as the barrister said in the court, I would’ve got three to six years. I would hope that there would be a body that can monitor social services and see that they’re conducting their duties properly.”
The problems for 46-year-old Dennis, from Hackney, started in April 2009 as he attempted to obtain responsibility for his brother Kenneth Plummer’s wellbeing, because his former foster carer could no longer be responsible for him.
Dennis had met officials during a discharge meeting at Goodmayes Hospital, as his brother had been suffering from mental illness at the time.
After the meeting, Dennis said he was accused of using abusive language and threatening a social worker. However, unbeknownst to them, Dennis had recorded the meeting on his dictaphone, which was later used in court as evidence to show he had not behaved as alleged.
After the discharge meeting, Dennis said he was banned from seeing Plummer for four months. When the ban was over, Dennis went to visit his brother but faced another accusation from the same social worker.
“…She made the allegation that I attacked her,” said Dennis, who was found not guilty of assault.
Dennis also claims that the council ‘invented’ a non-existent brother and implied he had designs on his brother’s money.
Hackney Council documents obtained by The Voice, make reference to two brothers.
A Hackney Council review on Plummer’s health when he was under his foster carer’s supervision, stated: ‘One brother, Brian, visits regularly, and Kenny enjoys these visits… However, other members visit more sporadically, which can leave Kenny feeling confused. Additional problems have developed due to the inheritance. There is concern about one brother, Lowell (sic), who is keen to manage Kenny’s money.’
Dennis later formally complained to the Ombudsman, who considers complaints of service failure and maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman upheld some of Dennis’ claims, ruling on January 26, that Dennis ‘was the subject of false allegations by his brother’s care manager regarding his behaviour at a meeting in a hospital.’
The Ombudsman added: ‘The foster carer has signed a statement confirming that the complainant has never asked or bothered her for his brother’s money and that she had never given the social worker the impression that he had been behaving in this manner.’
Hackney Council reportedly offered Dennis an apology and a total of £1,600 compensation, but said in a statement: ‘The Council will be making no comment due to legal reasons.’
