No permission necessary

More insight into how Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) treat the people/families they exist to serve while protecting their ‘own’. We raised numerous issues about the secret review OCC commissioned once we were aware of it. A review that clearly should be binned it was so deeply flawed.

Instead, the OCC social care director wrote to us in May stating ‘the report was prepared by someone independent to the Council and the appropriate course is for him to respond to your comments’.

Pretty pompous really. Particularly given that the director failed to mention that OCC would feed into the ‘independent person’s’ response with their own comments on each of the 61 points raised. A document included in the latest subject access information. I think we can probably all agree to ditch any claim to ‘independence’ at this point. The internal claim boat long since sailed given the circulation list. So, a review that is neither independent nor internal. Mmm.

The extract below covers points 5/6 of the OCC responses to the issues I raised written for the person who produced the review. Capturing so much in few words. And carefully placed dotted black ink.


The consultant, carefully shrouded in secrecy and protection. This is his personal information and we would need to seek his permission before sharing anything…

LB and our personal information?

No permission necessary.

[Postscript: In documenting these (what are, to us) chillingly, consistent accounts of crap practice and worse, I’m not suggesting that Sloven/OCC are monstrous providers/organisations. I suspect these practices are widespread.]

1 thought on “No permission necessary

  1. Had it not been for OCC commissioned ‘care’, your son, would still be alive.

    The OCC then commissioned, and paid for, with your money, what they purport to be an ‘independent’ investigation/consultancy report.

    This consultant, is only ‘independent’, because, they have said he is, substantively, de facto, he is not as;

    This person, has worked for OCC before, and other LAs, in a similar capacity, his livelihood depends partly, if not largely, and/or wholly, on income from LAs, for this type of ‘consultancy’.

    He is therefore, effectively, an LA employee.

    And as such, must act in their best interests, otherwise, he will lose his future income.

    There is therefore, a conflict of interests between him, you, and your son.

    The inaccuracies, you have found in his report, support this, and also show de facto bias
    This ‘independent’, because we say it is, is a standard modus, in all large corporations, and such consultants, you will find,if you see his CV/name, are likely to be a former/retired executive, of the corporation, or a connected corporation, or, related to one.

    More evidence of bias, and conflict.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.