The above is a link to the CHRE (council for health regulatory excellence – or somesuch appalling quangoese). I’ve read the full report and can confirm the Telegraph writer gets the gist. It’s worth a look if you missed it. Fundamentally, it’s an enquiry into the IPCC equivalent for social workers and showed this organisation was a complete mess and covering up major incompetence and scandal. This is a widely held view on the IPCC itself, but their CEO and Chair are in active denial and are using silly IPSOS Mori polling of society in general to hide their failings. The CHRE is a dismal GUANGO (no typo, it sounds more like guano), but the report shows what can be done with a little straightforward enquiry. They actually asked people involved for their views and looked at some of the horror cases that emerged without the kind of hostile prejudice cops show when confronted by old ladies they have let down.
We could revise the methods used by using new technology and get good work done across the public sector. The basic idea is simple – ask the right people and protect whistle-blowers. New technology would allow us to talk directly to complainants (say Google Talk) and get surveys done very cheaply using ‘spankout a survey’ technology (more than this, we can follow up to find out what respondents really meant). The results could easily be available for genuine public criticism on a website.
I’m only talking in outline here, but the great advantages involve cutting costs and cutting out the expert bias of guns hired by authorities interested only in protecting their own interests. I could set up a working model very cheaply. Universities are already doing work like this.
There are issues about protecting anonymity on all sides, but these can be handled. Such a system immediately confronts managerial and political interests and this is probably the only reason it’s not in widespread use. There’s a business opportunity here too, though this runs up against existing interests too.
My guess is it would take about five to ten pages to detail how to go about it all. In principle, we could change the way we go about public sector decision making, and the legal and political systems too. The move is towards a real open society and, of course, confronts the enemies of such.
The Telegraph report shows what can be found out and established, though we could go much further.
The key issues for me concern public choice theory – roughly a means to bring the ‘private’ interests of decision-makers into line with public interests. There is no need, in the first place to get very technical.
Allcoppedout's Blog 
“New technology would allow us to talk directly to complainants (say Google Talk) and get surveys done very cheaply using ‘spankout a survey’ technology (more than this, we can follow up to find out what respondents really meant).”
That has real possibilities.
So far, there’s been little attempt to use the neew media (blogs, FaceBook, Twitter) as anything other than an extention of ‘old media’, as a way of pumping out propaganda and advertising only the good.
There’s been very little use of the new media to really engage. The YourFreedom webpage attempt is a good start, but look how easily it’s ignored and moderated down when it starts telling the people in charge what they don’t want to hear…
Nearly all the problems are to do with management control. My first study on this was in 1985. Laughably the first rule in MIS is equality of access! I was on a project in 85 to form multimedia deliverable programmes. Funding was withdrawn at the point they realised we didn’t need universities. MIT and Harvard stopped their programmes at the same time. Our technology back then was Apple plus whirring video role play and graphics!
Now we can ask why an MP ever needs to be in London and why debates are ever not available to all. And loads more – then you realise why we are still asking! Basically, we now need Luddites to smash the old machinery.
OMG! Well, I stand corrected Champ, although I suspect that doesn’t give you any good feelings of satisfaction.
So, after everything that has been done to try to protect children from sexual abuse, especially whilst in council care homes, it’s still happening. That is an utter disgrace, and as that was reported under Ed Balls watch, the buck stops with him. I am surprised that the Daily Mail didn’t pick up on that scandal, unless I missed it in the paper for one reason or another.
Were the social workers who were abusing children in care, “sharing” the victims with vile creeps in other professions? That is what went on in the 1950’s.
They gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “organised crime”.
I feel very saddened by this article in the Telegraph, which just adds to the argument to castrate the B@$t@£ds…..excuse my language please. I’m certainly no “bleeding heart Liberal tree hugger” when it comes to paedophiles and the harm they inflict upon children.
I think you have a good idea about doing an online survey, but I’m not sure how you would know that they were all telling the truth? If the website was easily accessed from the internet, it could be subjected to hoax stories, just like hoax 999 calls from idiots with nothing better to do. It’s always the minority, the mad and the bad, who cause trouble and spoil things for everyone else. I doubt that will ever change.
When cops and other professionals react in a hostile, defensive and arse covering manner towards the “old lady” they have let down, they just make the situation worse and more distressing for the old girl, or whoever.
That sort of reaction and behaviour, although it is understandable because of the fear of job losses etc, does nothing to instil a sense of confidence in whichever “profession” has fallen short of their duty to others. People would have more faith in them, and goodwill, if they just held their hands up and acknowledged errors, and then put things right for the victim. That would be a “win-win” situation, I think, rather than making the lawyers rich, via years of litigation.
Did the lawyers come up with this practice of lying hostility and backside covering, to protect bent professionals, or those who make mistakes?
I read the ‘champion’ thing on a mug. We were more Scots than Irish, but the term Scot once meant ‘wild Irish’. We should be beyond nationality by now, but remain sad puppies.
I can only but empathise with the above. I saw both sides of victimisation as an investigator – dreadful abuse and false allegations. Society is much viler than we will accept and investigation methods remain crude and far too hurtful. There are very few ‘professionals’ – it may well be a term for ‘hired gun’.
I just agree with he above – the point is we have methods to do much better and they are not being used because of the cover-up syndrome.
You say there are “methods to do much better” that are not being used….because of the cover up syndrome.
How totally and utterly disappointing, and unacceptable in the 21st Century.
It’s utterly sad.
I should have asked you earlier…..what methods to do much better do you have, which are not being used?
It becomes very clear when trying to do research that the real problem lies in he creation of expertise, rather than developing an open system of collecting and reporting evidence.
Modern methods available to us all could produce detailed opinion and genuine public dialogue on what we want to do and how we see life. I think the real problem now is not one of techniques or theoretical paradigms, but the control of feedback on real experience and the creation of ‘experts’ (such as many idiot media pundits and professors of ‘happiness’). It would be easier to show you an example of what I mean, than express an abstract system.
It sounds a bit complicated and not that easy to put into words, but thanks for explaining once again Champ.
You are very patient with my endless questions and I do appreciate the time you give to make matters clearer.
I guess that’s why you are a teacher!
I’m not being flippant, but I rather like the idea of “Professors of Happiness”. The world needs them!
Wild Irish, eh Champ? The Celts are a passionate and intuitive people – my ancestors too!