Hackney GP: Social workers demonised by politicians

And Hackney GP complains about the low levels of respect for social workers:

"It seems likely that the main appeal for New Labour is that a social pedagogue is not a social worker, that most disparaged and discredited professional of the past 10 years. A combination of managerialism, marketisation and scapegoating by politicians and the media has produced widespread demoralisation among social workers. The social pedagogue - new, glossy, Scandinavian, spouting platitudes about providing a "holistic package of support" and "integrated care and education" - emerges as the solution to a problem largely created by New Labour."

Response from Lambeth Council

Following the publication of the story below (Did Lambeth Council put Hackney kids at risk?), Lambeth Council sent Blood and Property this statement:

“Brian Pead worked for Lambeth Council in the Open Centre for Vocational Studies from 1st August 2005 and was suspended on 8th December 2006. Following an investigation into complaints about his conduct he was dismissed on 31st July 2007

“None of the complaints made against Brian Pead during his time at the Council relate to inappropriate sexual activity. However, as with any employee, any formal allegations about an employee which have been found proven following a Council investigation would be stated in any future references."

Blood and Property was also asked to remove its reference to the Bexley Times article which Lambeth Council says is not true.

However, both The Bexley Times and Central News Agency said they had not heard anything from Lambeth Council about the claims made in their stories. My understanding is that if it was said in court, then people have a right to know that it was said.

It is clear from Lambeth Council's response that it does not accept the claim that it dismissed Brian Pead for masturbating in a theatre.

The Open (Learning) Centre for Vocational Studies is part of Lambeth's Children's and young people's service and Brian Pead was dismissed from his job there six months before he started work for Off Centre, a Hackney-based child counselling service.

Six months after that he was arrested in a police sting attempting to pay a 14-year-old girl for sex.

It would be useful to know what Lambeth Council did know about Brian Pead and whether this was passed on to his employers in Hackney - Off Centre - and whether they would have employed him if they had known these details. A director of Off Centre told Blood and Property that a different decision would have been likely if more information had been available.

Did Lambeth council put Hackney kids at risk?

A Hackney-based child counselling service employed a child therapist who attempted to pay a 14-year-old girl for sex less than six months after he started the job.

Brian Pead was caught in an internet-based police sting and sentenced in January. The Hackney agency where Pead worked said that none of its clients were involved.

A court report in the Bexley Times said that Pead had previously been sacked from a job at Lambeth Council after being caught masturbating in a theatre.

Yesterday (Tuesday) a spokesperson for Lambeth Council told Blood and Property that this claim was not correct but would not provide any further details. Neither would she say when Pead worked for Lambeth Council or what job he held there. She also said that answering Blood and Property's questions was not a priority.

Blood and Property has recieved a statement from Off Centre, the Hackney-based agency where Pead was working. One director of Off Centre said that all required checks were carried out but believed that the new Vetting and Barring Scheme may have alerted them to Pead's record.

Off Centre is in Hackney South and Shoreditch, the constituency of Meg Hillier, the minister in charge of the Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It remains unclear whether any of Pead's past behaviour would have alerted Off Centre, or whether this information would have been available to Off Centre via the current system, or under the Vetting and Barring scheme.

Off Centre provided this statement: "Brian Pead was employed by Off Centre from January 9th 2008 to June 13th 2008 after which he was summarily dismissed due to gross misconduct.

"Before Mr Pead took up said employment, Off Centre carried out all pertinent checks including references and enhanced CRB checks in line with child protection and safeguarding children and young people guidelines.

"On Wednesday 4th June 2008 Off Centre management was informed that Mr Pead had been arrested and was being held at a police station on charges of attempting to solicit sex over the internet with a 14-year-old girl.

"Due to the seriousness of the matter, Mr Pead was suspended immediately pending a disciplinary investigation which resulted in a dismissal from Off Centre. Mr Pead was still in his probationary period at the time.

"Off Centre co-operated fully with the the ensuing police investigation and management was assured by police and our own internal investigation that none of Off Centre's clients were involved.

"The police investigation concerned events outside of the organisation and, as such, Off Centre had no further direct involvement in the matter, other than to correct Mr Pead's untruthful claim that he had been conducting research into CSA (child sexual abuse) as this was certainly not part of his role at Off Centre.

"During the subsequent court case, Nicola Noone, director of Off Centre, gave evidence to refute Mr Pead's claim as research was not part of his role at Off Centre, nor was it ever discussed with, or sanctioned by, management.

"On 23rd December 2009, the director of Off Centre was informed that a guilty verdict had been returned. On 24 December 2009, the director emailed the ISA to initiate the process of making a referral and on 18th January 2010 a full referral, together with supporting information was submitted to the ISA. Mr Pead was sentenced on 27 January, 2007."

Hackney MP mums battle over motherhood

On Wednesday there was a debate in Parliament about the Yarl's Wood detention centre. Only two women spoke in the debate. They were both Hackney MPs and both mothers: (Yarl's Wood debate via theyworkforyou.com.)

Diane Abbott said: "I know that the Minister (Meg Hillier) is a mother. She will have a brief from her officials and she will talk to us about immigration control, but I ask her to imagine that it was her children behind bars. Are these the conditions that she would want for them? They would not be able to run completely free as far as they like, or to go into town to see Father Christmas, or to go into town to meet their friends. Are those the conditions that anyone would want for their child? Not for three months, not for two months, not for a month-not even for a day."

Meg Hillier said: "I can go into some of my plans to look at other options as the Minister now responsible for the matter, but there are important issues about whether we keep children with their parents. I should not want children to be separated from their parents, and, importantly, we must recognise that as part of the issue when detaining children: the parents refuse to leave, and they should take some responsibility for the situation."

Later in the debate:

Diane Abbott: "My hon. Friend said that when immigration officials and other appropriate officials carry out their - I know that she deprecates the phrase - dawn raids, there is always somebody there who has the interests of the child at heart. Is she saying to the House that she is confident that these raids, with people being taken from their homes in this way, do not traumatise the children?"

Meg Hillier: "Clearly, any child going through this process will find it very challenging. As my hon. Friend rightly predicted I would say, the Government have certain responsibilities as regards immigration and immigration control. If she will wait to the end of my comments, I can talk to her about some of the work on alternatives that is under way. I also reiterate that parents have responsibility. As a parent myself, I have some responsibility for what my children do, what harm's way I put them into, and what situations they are in. Equally, parents who are facing detention or deportation have made a choice not to leave voluntarily; they therefore have some responsibility, and it is important to recognise that."

Diane Abbott: "She says, and I have heard a succession of Ministers in her position say, that the parents have made a choice and that that is why their children are in detention. Can she tell me of any other area of public policy in which we make children suffer because of the choices of their parents? The role of the state is normally to protect children from bad choices that their parents make."

Meg Hillier: "I will provide figures in a little while about the number of children detained for different periods, but there are many areas in which children suffer because of the choices of their parents, such as when a parent is in a domestic prison. I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency who have known children who have come home from school to find that Dad or Mum has been in prison, which affects them massively. There are other matters on which children are affected by the decisions of their parents, and we do need to detain people on certain grounds."

Should Hackney child counsellor ever have got the job?

In December a Hackney child counsellor was found guilty of offering £300 to a 14-year-old girl to have sex with him: Child therapist tried to bribe underage girl for sex.

According to court reports Brian Pead had been dismissed from a job at Lambeth Borough Council for masturbating in a theatre before he came to work in Hackney.

The court was told that he worked for a counselling agency in Hackney, sometimes with children who had suffered from sexual abuse.

When he was caught in a police sting Brian Pead claimed that he was carrying out research for his work as a children's counsellor.

Blood and Property asked Hackney Council for details about Pead's work in Hackney on Wednesday but was told that, because various people were either ill or away, there would be no answer until next week.

Politicians: any role in Hackney social services' dark past?

The group manager of Hackney's children's services, Risthardh Hare, reviewed Precious for the Guardian last week. He said: "I've had three cases that have been similar to Precious's. It's not unheard of. It's not a made up story to pull the heart strings. It happens now."

On January 17, the Guardian printed another story, a book by a detective sergeant who worked for Hackney police's child protection unit up until 2006. This contained details of a case which led to a revamp of Hackney's social services - and the employment of social workers like Hare.

It was the death of a child in 2003: "he (Tyrell) had been taken off the child protection register six days before he was killed. Social services had seen Tyrell four times in the month before he died..."

The unnamed detective said: "After the Tyrell trial, Hackney council issued a statement: "The area child protection committee is concluding its investigation. Recommendations will be implemented by the respective agencies. Appropriate action will be taken as required if individual failings are identified." But the results of their investigation were never made public."


In 1999 Hackney Council had been ordered to improve its child care services by the government. Jules Pipe became Leader of Hackney Council in June 2001 and has been Mayor since October 2002. The Tyrell tragedy happened in 2003.

The unpublished report might show if the current administration had any role in this event. Whether child care had been turned around since 1999. Whether politicians helped or hindered social services up until Tyrell's death in 2003.

(This advertorial piece for Hackney's social services said Risthardh Hare was one of the first to take a post in an upgraded department. It said: "Hare’s new position pays over £5,000 a year more than the mainstream rate for someone of his experience. It also offers him more financial responsibility; he is permitted to authorise payments of up to £500 without consulting his line manager.")

Hackney child protection cop reveals all

The Guardian/Observer has published an extract from a book by a detective sergeant who worked in Hackney's child protection team until 2006. In the piece titled - How can a child be beaten to death and no one is jailed for murder - he describes the death of 19 month old Tyrell.

"he had been taken off the child protection register six days before he was killed. Social services had seen Tyrell four times in the month before he died..."

Hackney Council also gets unhappy mention for failing to be transparent about its social services:

"After the Tyrell trial, Hackney council issued a statement: "The area child protection committee is concluding its investigation. Recommendations will be implemented by the respective agencies. Appropriate action will be taken as required if individual failings are identified." But the results of their investigation were never made public.It is precisely this sort of reaction that increases the public's antagonism towards social workers."

However the piece is clear that these social workers often have their hands tied and are doing one of the toughest jobs with the least recognition.