Farcical inaccuracies

It turns out that now OCC have published this report without our knowledge, and shared it with at least one external organisation, I’m expected to go through all 21 pages and highlight the factual inaccuracies contained within it. [Warning: the report apparently took 8 months to publish because the new Deputy Director of Social Care wanted it to be as robust as possible and added quality assurance. Hard hat time for those who need services in Oxon.]

Can you imagine wading through old emails from a time when your son was still alive [he died?] to correct a report you didn’t know was being written? In your own time? Serious brain melt. How much was matey boy paid to write this rubbish I wonder.

Deep breath.

Here’s just one example around respite. (I don’t think OCC can seriously expect me to keep this confidential in the circumstances). The report is so biased it’s almost comedic. Definitive statements about my ‘failings’ (without evidence) throughout but light touch on OCC on any dodgy ground. The ‘it appears from the records’ consistently falls on the side of the council with no consideration the records might be a little bit partial.

crap report 3

crap1

Not quite what happened. As the email exchange below demonstrates. I waited in all day for the three of them to turn up. The care manager eventually called to say she wouldn’t be able to come round after all. She’d run out of time. Bit of a shocker really in the circumstances. During that call she described the respite centre as a building with a snooker table and made it a completely unappealing option.

crap report2

More mysterious reporting about respite here:

crap1

In contrast, from my blog, 18 March 2013:

crap 1

And from March 19th…

crap6

How can the records possibly show “I did not take up the offer”? It’s just made up rubbish leading to one of the cracking conclusions:

crap report 2

Ah. It was all my fault. Trial by a ridiculous, crap and biased report. I’ll leave you with one more nonsensical snippet while I crawl off and wonder what the hell is going on.

crap report1

Postscript: It would not be possible to rebut a lot of this stuff without having documented the experience on the pages of this blog. So important to keep detailed notes. And so blinking wrong.

Farcical inaccuracies

It turns out that now OCC have published this report without our knowledge, and shared it with at least one external organisation, I’m expected to go through all 21 pages and highlight the factual inaccuracies contained within it. [Warning: the report apparently took 8 months to publish because the new Deputy Director of Social Care wanted it to be as “robust as possible” and “added quality assurance”. Hard hat time for those who need services in Oxon.]

Can you imagine wading through old emails from a time when your son was still alive [he died?] to correct a report you didn’t know was being written? In your own time? Serious brain melt. How much was matey boy paid to write this rubbish I wonder.

Deep breath.

(I don’t think OCC can seriously expect me to keep this confidential in the circumstances). The report is so biased it’s almost comedic. Definitive statements about my ‘failings’ (without evidence) throughout but light touch on OCC on any dodgy ground. Here’s just one example around the issue of respite.

crap report 3

crap1

Not quite what happened. As the email exchange below demonstrates. I waited in all day for the three of them to turn up. The care manager eventually called to say she wouldn’t be able to come round after all. She’d run out of time. Bit of a shocker really in the circumstances. And one of those things that didn’t ‘appear in the records’. During that call she described the respite centre as a building with a snooker table and made it a completely unappealing option.

crap report2

More mysterious reporting about respite here:

crap1

In contrast, from my blog, 18 March 2013:

crap 1

And from March 19th…

crap6

How can the records possibly show “I did not take up the offer”? The records are incomplete. This incompleteness is a failing on the part of OCC but instead leads to this conclusion:

crap report 2

Ah. It was all my fault. Trial by a ridiculous, crap and biased report. Three “in my views’ in this particular conclusion. How can you possibly have a view that excludes us from the process and relies on partial record keeping?

I’ll leave you with one more nonsensical snippet while I crawl off and wonder what the hell is going on.

crap report1

It was LB’s fault too.

Postscript: It would not be possible to rebut a lot of this stuff without having documented the experience on the pages of this blog. So important to keep detailed notes. And so blinking wrong.