"Informed judgment"? Totally impossible. Simply because the honest do not tell the truth either-if it was my kids being taken into care, I would have done anything to keep my kids.
The info was not available in the way you mean. There are tens of thousands of cases that (at that time) looked the same.
Schools? Teachers are well-intentioned, but this is not where their strengths lie.
You have no concept of the amount of cases, and the immense burden on Social Workers. Under-staffed and under-appreciated. The things you believe should happen involve spending £Billions. Which we say should happen-but we won't pay for it.
Thankfully it is still very rare that horrible cases like this happen
The 15 missed opportunities to save Sara Sharif: Social services closed case just months before schoolgirl's murder despite teachers' concerns and father's history of abuse
Sara was found to have ten spinal fractures and further fractures to her right collar bone, both shoulder blades, both arms, both hands, three separate fingers, bones near the wrist in each hand, two ribs and her hyoid bone in the neck
1. January 2013
Sara Sharif is made subject to a child protection plan at birth due to her father Urfan Sharif being accused of attacking three women including her mother, as well as hitting and biting two children. But she is allowed to remain with her father.
2. February 22, 2013
A month after Sara is born, social services and police are told that Sharif has slapped a child around the face. No charges are brought.
3. May 7, 2013
A social worker spots a burn mark on a child’s leg. Sharif had failed to report the incident and claimed it was a BBQ accident. Nothing is done.
4. October 7, 2013
A child is seen with a burn mark sustained from a domestic iron. Sharif told social services the child had knocked into the iron. No action is taken.
5. 2013-2014
A child tells a social worker that Sharif smashed up a TV and punched Sara’s mother Olga.
6. November 2014
Sara is taken into foster care after a child tells a social worker about a bite mark. But she later returns to live with her father following a family court hearing in October 2019 where social services recommend she should stay with him because that is her preference.
7. January 2015
Sharif is reported to social services for waving a knife around at home in what he said was a ‘zombie’ game. Social workers note that Sharif hit and kicked Olga at home and the pair threatened to kill each other.
8. February 2015
A child tells their foster carer that Sharif used to hit them on the bottom with a belt. In September the child is heard to say to Sharif, ‘when you’re at home you hit and kick me every day’.
9. 2015
Olga tells social services that Sharif tightened a belt around her neck. Around this time social workers complain Sharif is coercive and derogatory towards them.
10. December 2016
A child tells a social worker they don’t like Sharif because he punched them all over their body and gave them lots of bruises. Social workers observe that Sara flinches when Sharif tells her off during supervised contact and she seems surprised when he cuddles her.
11. June 6, 2022
A teacher reports that Sara has a bruise under her eye to the school’s online child protection monitoring system. Sara initially will not say what happened, before claiming another child hit her.
12. March 10, 2023
A teacher saw bruises on her face. Sara said she had fallen on roller skates. When Sara gave a different story to a safeguarding lead, the school made a referral to social services. Six days later social services remove ‘decide to take no further action’ and replace ‘close the case’.
'The headteacher spoke to her and Sara lowered her head and refused to lift her head or show her head,' prosecutor William Emlyn Hughes KC told jurors during the six week murder trial.
'She was reluctant to talk and kept her face lowered and only spoke with her face buried with her arm on the table.'
13. March 20, 2023
A report is logged on the school's internal system after Sara’s stepmother Beinash Batool is overheard referring to children as "motherf***er, sister f***er, b**** and ****" in the playground.
14. March 28, 2023
Batool claims to a teacher that a mark on Sara’s face is caused by a pen. The teacher tells the school’s safeguarding lead.
15. April 17, 2023
Sharif decides to home-school Sara. The school rings the council for advice and is told it should make a referral if there are concerns.
It was the third time she had been taken out of school following previous occasions in June 2022 and again after April 2023.
Staff see Sara later that day at school pick-up and she seems fine so they decide against it, even though she had been beaten earlier that day. She is never seen outside the home again.
Classic example if trial by Daily Mail. Let's provide the real context of those 15 "facts"
1. 3 children involved-none of which appear to be Sara 2. A child-not Sara 3. A child-not Sara 4. A child-not Sara 5. Alleged violence v ex-wife. Not Sara 6. Relevant. But minor and common 7. V Adult-not Sara 8. A child-not Sara 9. An adult and Social Workers-not Sara 10. A child-not Sara 11. As is very common, child gives believable account explaining injuries. 12. See 11 13. The stepmother used some bad language at the School. Really? 14. See 11 15. Finally got to the stage where it is becoming clear further action is warranted. Sadly, too late
There are tens of thousands of children where similar levels of suspicion start. Thankfully, this level of harm is very rare
1 thing that has become clear is that 1 of her siblings was taken into care. Although we do not know why. Or why not with her Mother
In the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter.”
A shocking trial saw Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 42, and his wife Beinash Batool 30, found guilty for her murder, after she suffered a catalogue of 70 injuries, including 25 fractures, human bite marks and burns. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, was convicted for causing or allowing her death while living with them.
Details later emerged from previous family court proceedings, which revealed that Surrey County Council had repeatedly raised “significant concerns” about Sara’s safety.
The council first had contact with Sharif and Sara’s mother Olga Domin in 2010 - more than two years before Sara was born - having received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.
Within a week of Sara’s birth in 2013, the authority began care proceedings concerning the children.
Between 2013 and 2015, several allegations of abuse were made against Sharif and Domin, which were never tested in court despite three sets of family court proceedings.
One hearing in 2014 told that the council had “significant concerns” about the children returning to Sharif, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the children and domestic abuse with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator”.
Sara and her sibling U were returned to the parents. Sibling Z remained in foster care where they made allegations of physical abuse perpetrated by both parents, as well as allegations of domestic violence.
These allegations were denied by Sharif and Domin and the court did not determine the truth.
In 2015, Domin accused Sharif of hitting her and their children, as well as controlling, violent behaviour. He made counter-allegations against Domin and agreed to go on a domestic violence course, but these allegations were never tested in court.
Sara would briefly go into foster care and then join her mother in a refuge. While in foster care, a carer noted scars potentially consistent with cigarette burns on Sara and her sibling, which Domin and Sharif said were chicken pox scars.
By November that year, the family concluded the children should live with Domin, allowing supervised visits with Sharif.
In 2019, after Sara alleged Domin had abused her, a judge approved her moving to live with her father in Woking, where she later died after a campaign of abuse.
Freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers were two of many media figures who appealed the decision as they told a hearing on 14 January that the judges should be named in the interests of transparency.
Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
I appreciate that I am never going to convince you.
You can choose to believe the Daily Mail. That's your right. But the bits you have placed in bold show, with the greatest of respect, a total lack of understanding of exactly how these things work.
1. It is a sad fact that children do not always tell the truth about their parents. Whole host of reasons for that-pretty much none of which are the fault of the child
2. At the same time, any of the Authorities are going to take careful account of what the Child says. Because they were there. And none of the relevant Authorities were
3. It is clear from the narrative that this poor child, and un all likelihood her siblings, were left with a set of appalling choices. Place yourself in her shoes for a minute. In her mind, she has the choice of saying her Mother was abusing her, saying her Father was abusing her, or maximising the chances of staying with 1 or more siblings and reuniting with another
4. It is equally clear that she made the decision to come forward in relation to her Mother's abuse. And hide her Father's. For reasons relating to Family. Poor child.
5. Easy to say with hindsight that the Mother, as well as appearing to be an abuser herself, was telling the truth about her ex-Husband. Easy to say now. Not easy to say then. And trying to prove that a Father is abusing a child on the say-so of an abusive ex-wife, while the child is denying it? It's not going to happen
6. 1 example of how the Press enrage me is the sentence you keep quoting:- Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judge being named. It relates to the totally different judge who made an Order to try and protect a different Judge, and their family from death threats. Which, on a legal technicality, was not within that particular Judge's powers. A clever legal argument. If you like that sort of thing. But nothing to do with the poor child. And everything to do with the Daily Mail trying to sell newspapers. Nothing to do with "transparency". Just faux outrage against the system. With zero informed comment about how to improve things.
We want to blame people. Anyone will do. Soooo much better spending a fortune dealing with Subject Access requests, finger pointing, enquiries. Anything rather than spend taxpayer's money improving stuff.
Here are 2 suggestions. That will cost money. A lot of money. Money we used to spend on a lot of this, but now choose not to:-
(1). Improve Funding on the Care system to stop the routine splitting up of siblings. Going into Care is enormously stressful. Being needlessly separated from Brothers and Sisters causes poor children like Sara to be placed in terrible positions. Because she knew that she and her siblings would be adversely affected by revealing her Father's abuse
(2) Reinstate the hundreds of Special Schools that have been shut down to save money. We have tens of thousands of children who have "Special Educational Needs" who used to receive Education that was designed to meet their Special Needs. Who are now placed in mainstream education.
None of that will happen, of course. We will just look at people to blame. Not the Abusers. Anyone who is trying to help. Much better than spending money.
I appreciate that I am never going to convince you.
You can choose to believe the Daily Mail. That's your right. But the bits you have placed in bold show, with the greatest of respect, a total lack of understanding of exactly how these things work.
1. It is a sad fact that children do not always tell the truth about their parents. Whole host of reasons for that-pretty much none of which are the fault of the child
2. At the same time, any of the Authorities are going to take careful account of what the Child says. Because they were there. And none of the relevant Authorities were
3. It is clear from the narrative that this poor child, and un all likelihood her siblings, were left with a set of appalling choices. Place yourself in her shoes for a minute. In her mind, she has the choice of saying her Mother was abusing her, saying her Father was abusing her, or maximising the chances of staying with 1 or more siblings and reuniting with another
4. It is equally clear that she made the decision to come forward in relation to her Mother's abuse. And hide her Father's. For reasons relating to Family. Poor child.
5. Easy to say with hindsight that the Mother, as well as appearing to be an abuser herself, was telling the truth about her ex-Husband. Easy to say now. Not easy to say then. And trying to prove that a Father is abusing a child on the say-so of an abusive ex-wife, while the child is denying it? It's not going to happen
6. 1 example of how the Press enrage me is the sentence you keep quoting:- Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judge being named. It relates to the totally different judge who made an Order to try and protect a different Judge, and their family from death threats. Which, on a legal technicality, was not within that particular Judge's powers. A clever legal argument. If you like that sort of thing. But nothing to do with the poor child. And everything to do with the Daily Mail trying to sell newspapers. Nothing to do with "transparency". Just faux outrage against the system. With zero informed comment about how to improve things.
We want to blame people. Anyone will do. Soooo much better spending a fortune dealing with Subject Access requests, finger pointing, enquiries. Anything rather than spend taxpayer's money improving stuff.
Here are 2 suggestions. That will cost money. A lot of money. Money we used to spend on a lot of this, but now choose not to:-
(1). Improve Funding on the Care system to stop the routine splitting up of siblings. Going into Care is enormously stressful. Being needlessly separated from Brothers and Sisters causes poor children like Sara to be placed in terrible positions. Because she knew that she and her siblings would be adversely affected by revealing her Father's abuse
(2) Reinstate the hundreds of Special Schools that have been shut down to save money. We have tens of thousands of children who have "Special Educational Needs" who used to receive Education that was designed to meet their Special Needs. Who are now placed in mainstream education.
None of that will happen, of course. We will just look at people to blame. Not the Abusers. Anyone who is trying to help. Much better than spending money.
I appreciate that I am never going to convince you.
That is something that we can agree upon.
I dont think that we should lose sight of the fact that Sara was 10 years old when she died. I think it preposterous that we place the responsibility for making a decision regarding her care on her. The abuse of her and her siblings had gone on for years. There seems to be evidence that both her Mother, and Father were guilty of this abuse. The justification for returning her to her Father seems to be that it was her choice. She made this choice while in her Mothers care, in 2019, and therefore a 6 year old. As she claimed that her Mother was abusing her at the time, it could only be expected that she would prefer to escape the most recent abuse, and return to her Father. Evidence of her abuse was obvious. I think her school did what they could. Social services didnt. The police didnt. The investigations were cursory. Bite marks, and cigarette burns were evident, but dont seem to have been investigated thoroughly.
I cant believe that if all the evidence that had been accumulated had been presented to the family court on three occasions, that she would have ended up back with her Father, and suffered the same fate.
If the authorities intend to leave decisions to six year olds, nothing will improve.
The problem is Phil that your suggestions deals with the aftermath of the problem, we should be looking at how to stop the problem in the first place. How to make people better parents.
We all have to pass a driving test to drive a car, we have to pass exams to get qualified in specific areas, foster carers have to jump through lots of hoops to be able to foster kids, yet there is no test, exam, assessment or even training course before people have children.
The most important job you can decide to do in your life is bringing up kids yet anyone can do it and often the least qualified, least suitable and least able are the ones that have the most children.
Children are now in education until age 18 I think. Maybe there should be a compulsory course in the last year about looking after children? Obviously that will never happen.
I don't know the answer, I doubt if there is one, it's quite upsetting really.
The problem is Phil that your suggestions deals with the aftermath of the problem, we should be looking at how to stop the problem in the first place. How to make people better parents.
We all have to pass a driving test to drive a car, we have to pass exams to get qualified in specific areas, foster carers have to jump through lots of hoops to be able to foster kids, yet there is no test, exam, assessment or even training course before people have children.
The most important job you can decide to do in your life is bringing up kids yet anyone can do it and often the least qualified, least suitable and least able are the ones that have the most children.
Children are now in education until age 18 I think. Maybe there should be a compulsory course in the last year about looking after children? Obviously that will never happen.
I don't know the answer, I doubt if there is one, it's quite upsetting really.
Fascinating.
And (sadly) encapsulates just how impossible this problem is.
How to make people better parents? Vital. We need to concentrate far more resources on post natal care.
Your suggestion about tests for parenthood will never be possible. Simply because the cure is worse than the disease. What do you propose? Rounding up the poor for mass sterilisation? Compulsory abortion for children with dodgy parents? Perhaps a gas chamber?
Compulsory course about looking after children? Sounds good. Why should there not be more people with an A-Level in Childcare than, say, History? And not just childcare-whole host of life skills. Quite why schools concentrate on teaching you stuff you will never need, rather than stuff you do, is (and always has been) ridiculous
The answer, as you rightly surmise, (or at least a partial answer) is spending more money to educate, inform and assist in a non-judgmental way.
Not going to happen.
We live in a world where everyone wants to improve things. Without spending money. Just made the mistake of reading the front page if the Daily Mail today. Apparently, businesses cannot afford their tax burden. But nothing whatsoever about who pays it instead...
1. Yes, I was a Solicitor for quite a lot of my life. And before that I spent some time as a Barrister.
2. I'm certainly not saying nothing should ever change. What I am saying is this is not the way to do it. As an example, it is perfectly possible to review the decisions. But that most certainly does not need to involve bringing named Judges into that process.
3. The advantage I have over you is that I (sadly) know just how common this sort of situation is. For example, as I understand it, the Mother had severe mental health problems, which were believed to have placed the child at risk. The risk was perceived to be far higher than the Father. On the info then available, it was. Less than 1 each
5. It is easy to say with hindsight that this 1 child should have been in care. But I am presuming you have never acted for Parents desperate not to lose their children. And 99.9% of them are unlucky, or merely inadequate and need help which we are unwilling to pay for. Which isn't to say the 0.1% are not vitally important. They are. Spotting them is rather more difficult
6. I mentioned that I used to be a Barrister at 1 time. For good reason. 1 of the cornerstones of British Justice is the "cab rank" principle. It means that if a Barrister has appropriate knowledge, experience and availability, they must act for people. Because-guess what-next to no-one wants to act for child-beaters, paedos and Tommy f.ing Robinson. So-where are we going with this? Going after the Judge? The person acting for the winning side for doing their job too well? The one acting for the losing side for not predicting the future?
7. Do you think the Media are the right people to judge on all of this? And to hang people out to dry for doing their job? The World has changed-someone with a 10 year old phone has access to a million times more information than 30 years ago. Together with names, addresses and pictures.
Glad I've retired.
Less than 1 each.
122,400 social workers As of the first quarter of 2024, there were approximately 122,400 social workers in the United Kingdom1. Specifically, there were 31,900 full-time equivalent (FTE) children and family social workers in post at 30 September 20202.
Comments
A shocking trial saw Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 42, and his wife Beinash Batool 30, found guilty for her murder, after she suffered a catalogue of 70 injuries, including 25 fractures, human bite marks and burns. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, was convicted for causing or allowing her death while living with them.
Details later emerged from previous family court proceedings, which revealed that Surrey County Council had repeatedly raised “significant concerns” about Sara’s safety.
The council first had contact with Sharif and Sara’s mother Olga Domin in 2010 - more than two years before Sara was born - having received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.
Within a week of Sara’s birth in 2013, the authority began care proceedings concerning the children.
Between 2013 and 2015, several allegations of abuse were made against Sharif and Domin, which were never tested in court despite three sets of family court proceedings.
One hearing in 2014 told that the council had “significant concerns” about the children returning to Sharif, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the children and domestic abuse with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator”.
Sara and her sibling U were returned to the parents. Sibling Z remained in foster care where they made allegations of physical abuse perpetrated by both parents, as well as allegations of domestic violence.
These allegations were denied by Sharif and Domin and the court did not determine the truth.
In 2015, Domin accused Sharif of hitting her and their children, as well as controlling, violent behaviour. He made counter-allegations against Domin and agreed to go on a domestic violence course, but these allegations were never tested in court.
Sara would briefly go into foster care and then join her mother in a refuge. While in foster care, a carer noted scars potentially consistent with cigarette burns on Sara and her sibling, which Domin and Sharif said were chicken pox scars.
By November that year, the family concluded the children should live with Domin, allowing supervised visits with Sharif.
In 2019, after Sara alleged Domin had abused her, a judge approved her moving to live with her father in Woking, where she later died after a campaign of abuse.
Freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers were two of many media figures who appealed the decision as they told a hearing on 14 January that the judges should be named in the interests of transparency.
Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/judges-who-allowed-sara-sharif-to-remain-in-her-father-s-custody-to-be-named-next-week/ar-AA1xMElL?ocid=BingNewsSerp#
You can choose to believe the Daily Mail. That's your right. But the bits you have placed in bold show, with the greatest of respect, a total lack of understanding of exactly how these things work.
1. It is a sad fact that children do not always tell the truth about their parents. Whole host of reasons for that-pretty much none of which are the fault of the child
2. At the same time, any of the Authorities are going to take careful account of what the Child says. Because they were there. And none of the relevant Authorities were
3. It is clear from the narrative that this poor child, and un all likelihood her siblings, were left with a set of appalling choices. Place yourself in her shoes for a minute. In her mind, she has the choice of saying her Mother was abusing her, saying her Father was abusing her, or maximising the chances of staying with 1 or more siblings and reuniting with another
4. It is equally clear that she made the decision to come forward in relation to her Mother's abuse. And hide her Father's. For reasons relating to Family. Poor child.
5. Easy to say with hindsight that the Mother, as well as appearing to be an abuser herself, was telling the truth about her ex-Husband. Easy to say now. Not easy to say then. And trying to prove that a Father is abusing a child on the say-so of an abusive ex-wife, while the child is denying it? It's not going to happen
6. 1 example of how the Press enrage me is the sentence you keep quoting:-
Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Judge being named. It relates to the totally different judge who made an Order to try and protect a different Judge, and their family from death threats. Which, on a legal technicality, was not within that particular Judge's powers. A clever legal argument. If you like that sort of thing. But nothing to do with the poor child. And everything to do with the Daily Mail trying to sell newspapers. Nothing to do with "transparency". Just faux outrage against the system. With zero informed comment about how to improve things.
We want to blame people. Anyone will do. Soooo much better spending a fortune dealing with Subject Access requests, finger pointing, enquiries. Anything rather than spend taxpayer's money improving stuff.
Here are 2 suggestions. That will cost money. A lot of money. Money we used to spend on a lot of this, but now choose not to:-
(1). Improve Funding on the Care system to stop the routine splitting up of siblings. Going into Care is enormously stressful. Being needlessly separated from Brothers and Sisters causes poor children like Sara to be placed in terrible positions. Because she knew that she and her siblings would be adversely affected by revealing her Father's abuse
(2) Reinstate the hundreds of Special Schools that have been shut down to save money. We have tens of thousands of children who have "Special Educational Needs" who used to receive Education that was designed to meet their Special Needs. Who are now placed in mainstream education.
None of that will happen, of course. We will just look at people to blame. Not the Abusers. Anyone who is trying to help. Much better than spending money.
That is something that we can agree upon.
I dont think that we should lose sight of the fact that Sara was 10 years old when she died.
I think it preposterous that we place the responsibility for making a decision regarding her care on her.
The abuse of her and her siblings had gone on for years.
There seems to be evidence that both her Mother, and Father were guilty of this abuse.
The justification for returning her to her Father seems to be that it was her choice.
She made this choice while in her Mothers care, in 2019, and therefore a 6 year old.
As she claimed that her Mother was abusing her at the time, it could only be expected that she would prefer to escape the most recent abuse, and return to her Father.
Evidence of her abuse was obvious.
I think her school did what they could.
Social services didnt.
The police didnt.
The investigations were cursory.
Bite marks, and cigarette burns were evident, but dont seem to have been investigated thoroughly.
I cant believe that if all the evidence that had been accumulated had been presented to the family court on three occasions, that she would have ended up back with her Father, and suffered the same fate.
If the authorities intend to leave decisions to six year olds, nothing will improve.
We all have to pass a driving test to drive a car, we have to pass exams to get qualified in specific areas, foster carers have to jump through lots of hoops to be able to foster kids, yet there is no test, exam, assessment or even training course before people have children.
The most important job you can decide to do in your life is bringing up kids yet anyone can do it and often the least qualified, least suitable and least able are the ones that have the most children.
Children are now in education until age 18 I think. Maybe there should be a compulsory course in the last year about looking after children? Obviously that will never happen.
I don't know the answer, I doubt if there is one, it's quite upsetting really.
And (sadly) encapsulates just how impossible this problem is.
How to make people better parents? Vital. We need to concentrate far more resources on post natal care.
Your suggestion about tests for parenthood will never be possible. Simply because the cure is worse than the disease. What do you propose? Rounding up the poor for mass sterilisation? Compulsory abortion for children with dodgy parents? Perhaps a gas chamber?
Compulsory course about looking after children? Sounds good. Why should there not be more people with an A-Level in Childcare than, say, History? And not just childcare-whole host of life skills. Quite why schools concentrate on teaching you stuff you will never need, rather than stuff you do, is (and always has been) ridiculous
The answer, as you rightly surmise, (or at least a partial answer) is spending more money to educate, inform and assist in a non-judgmental way.
Not going to happen.
We live in a world where everyone wants to improve things. Without spending money. Just made the mistake of reading the front page if the Daily Mail today. Apparently, businesses cannot afford their tax burden. But nothing whatsoever about who pays it instead...
There isn't one answer. And it is upsetting.
122,400 social workers
As of the first quarter of 2024, there were approximately 122,400 social workers in the United Kingdom1. Specifically, there were 31,900 full-time equivalent (FTE) children and family social workers in post at 30 September 20202.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/319253/number-of-social-workers-in-the-uk/