Awkward Cases

There are plenty of stories every day that raise an eyebrow, a shrug and a tired ‘the world’s gone barmy’. Sometimes however they linger rather longer and disturb rather more. Two recent UK cases exemplify this.

To most if us, Yvonne Hossack looks like a heroine. Working tirelessly and for free she represents vulnerable people living in care homes threatened with closure by local authorities. This puts her on a collision course and her own tenacity and self belief equips her well for the impact. This determination is based on her view that data proves that elderly people displaced from their residential homes to new ones face potentially fatal consequences – she claims that death rates double to 37% within a year. This then is no ‘soft’ issue of discomfort. Of course no one is suggesting that the local authorities aren’t concerned about this and don’t carefully consider it when making decisions; it’s just that they have their budgetary pressures and could do without intervention especially when it’s of the humanitarian and (in her own words) ‘bloody minded’ kind. This explains three authorities’ decision to complain about her to the Law Society on the basis that her efforts had wasted money and time – in effect tying up resources on ‘hopeless causes’. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed these complaints and the resulting press coverage - no doubt aided by the fact that Home Secretary Alan Johnson was one who spoke for her - has no doubt strengthened her support for the inevitable next battle.

In parallel came the story of Carol Hill, a school dinner lady sacked for bringing to the attention of parents the fact that their child had been bullied. Hill had seen an incident at school, broken it up and casually later asked the victim’s parents if the child was OK only to find that the parents knew little of it. Many people would see the school as the errant party – it seems an odd policy to advise parents only of a santised version of the truth that omitted the main details. The logic here though is that Hill apparently broke a duty of confidentiality – presumably to the bullies. The school and Local Education Authority appear to have been oddly silent in the fallout from this – there have been no denials of the facts and the only justification seems to have been a mantra that says Hill should have ‘followed proper procedures.’ This seems to miss two obvious points – a) the School’s own proper procedures seemed to be to hush things up, and b) she was merely showing concern in a daily conversation – she was hardly rushing to the press. Once again though the beurocrats actions bought the press rushing to them.

This is bizarre stuff. When what look to most of us like heroes can be treated as villains, it seems that ‘society’ (that’s us) must accept the rule of beurocrats focused on ridding themselves of embarrassing truths.