| THE BASIS OF CRITICISMS Community Care & Care in the Community:
Community Care was gradually introduced, as a coherent strategy, in the 1970's. The idea was to bring together the various statutory and voluntary service to provide improved support to disadvantaged people of all kinds. The basic principle was to 'include' all people in normal community activity and to obtain all their services, support and every reasonable opportunity, within normal, everyday community resources and services. Those who trust books and legislative account, may be deluded into thinking that this concept was invented by an intellectuals, enlightened politicians, or some bureaucrat in the halls of government. Other will believe that the concepts were developed by professionals. Well there is a bit of truth in each of these. Each made a contribution in its refinement as an idea, but also in diluting the potency of the original initiatives. This 'changing attitude' arose out of a number of voluntary projects and 'political' campaigns, that were concerned for people with disabilities and suffering injustice of various kinds. Many of these campaigns were started by people with disabilities, family carers of those who's suffering injustice, others who had experience injustice and disadvantage (like myself) and were 'surviving'. Thankfully, these groups increasingly included those who had benefitted from relative 'advantages' in life, but who were also particularly insightful, often by accident, into the stark prejudices they perceived. They recognised that most ordinary people and most professionals, were just unable to 'understand' the fundamental issues that were (and are) being raised. They acted as 'translators' and 'credible communicators'. Alternative Perspectives: As someone who has gradually 'transferred' to this more intellectual group, I can begin to understand the reason why disadvantaging & disabling behaviours, entrenched and rather 'ignorant' attitudes, prejudice and injustice, are so difficult to overcome. There is another general groups of people, who can be found in families, in the voluntary sector and within modern professional institutions, who have a truly caring attitudes, but can not comprehend that 'last step' necessary, in order to appreciate the underlying human entitlements. What is not always fully understood is the importance of the neglected, prejudiced, bullied, abused, or 'disabled' person's need to eventually 'own' the individual solution to their individually understood problems. It is important that we are not seen as victims for all time. It is not even necessary to be a 'victim' in order to get appropriate help, support and justice, 'as a right' and in the individual terms. The status of 'victim' is only appropriate in distinguishing that person from the perpetrator of injustice, neglect, or abuse of any kind. By continuing to identify people as victims, or disabled, it is an easy net step to seeing them as always vulnerable and somewhat incompetent. I takes a further simple step to see them as needing pity, overprotection, restriction on their actions and then condescension. We need to remember that the person is most usually vulnerable because of the insensitive, ignorant, or abusive actions of others, rather than any 'failing' of themselves. Even the term 'Vulnerable' is often grossly misunderstood. To be vulnerable is not to be stupid, incompetent, less human, less entitled. Quite the reverse. They are 'more' entitled, to in order to compensate for the variety of losses incurred at the hands of others. They are entitled to even greater appreciation for surviving this induced state. To be vulnerable is not to be 'weak'. Achilles, in knowing his own area of vulnerability (which was not of his making) would be all the stronger for knowing it. And so it is with the rest of us. Justice requires the Removal of Victim Status: It is others who need challenging, the person victimised can essentially remain the person they chose to be, should they wish. Unfortunately, it is some of the good human qualities that cause people to become 'victimised', through other people's ignorance, stupidity, jealousy & prejudice. These qualities are now protected in Law and in Human Rights. No one, whatever their beliefs, thoughts, gender, age, or sexual, emotional, or intellectual orientation deserves, or is required to be, humiliated, cajoled, intimidated, or abused in any way, for any reason. This is true as much for the single individuals, as it is for a recognised group. It is true for the practice of all professions, including police and courts, housing, education, health and social care. There is no situation, individual or group, that need refer to its special needs in terms of securing human and legal rights. Any reference to 'special groups' are supplementary to basic, established human rights. These supplements exist because of the failure of people (including all professionals) to recognise and respect established, general human rights. Relative Justice and Injustice: There have always been determined people, who have suffered injustices and disadvantage through no fault of their own. There were others who suffered further injustice, because of their perceived antisocial responses to the disadvantages they had experienced earlier in their lives and at crisis point throughout their lives. Some of these groups had generated sympathy, others did not. Some still do not and the social and personal damage goes on. The stories of people being made criminals for stealing food to eat, or stealing to get additional income to care for themselves and their families, are not exaggerated and experiences of this kind were still common through the 1970's and 1980's. Little distinction between these people and those who was behaved in indiscriminate antisocial ways because of the anger they felt towards those groups they believed had disadvantaged them. The most unjust failure, is the fact that neither of these two general groups are consistently and justly distinguished from those who, with very other advantage, choose out of selfish interests, greed, and sociopathic tendencies, to behave in antisocial, humiliating, abusive and criminal ways. They preying on the vulnerability & susceptibility of others, to inducement and 'mind games' manipulations, that are to the person's disadvantage, loss and distress. Putting the Power back where it Belongs: Groups of people, with various types of disabilities and experiencing diverse prejudices, who we now tend to call service users and minority groups, had been organising themselves to change and take control of the support that they needed, to improve the quality of their lives. These groups tended to organise around their perceived special needs, often set by professionals. Most have very common issues, problems and resolutions. I am often called in to help with problems that our local members have, or the problems that individuals that they meet may have. The fact that we tend to focus on the problems of our particular locality should not be taken to mean that we feel that these localities are exceptional in their health & social care failings. It is not uncommon for people to fall through the community support networks. This is for lots of personal and institutional reasons. I have established these social network projects in other areas and the picture is about the same, but the most challenging community failures concern people with challenging problems like; severe physical and sensory disability, mental health, learning disability, dependencies and complex combinations of these problems. People living in rural areas are most at risk of not getting help. In the main, the situations in villages and small towns is little better. These problems are partly geographical and technical and partly due to attitudes and traditional ways of thinking, clashing with modern ideas of self reliance, independence and Human Rights & Responsibilities. Mostly, modern services fail to adapt adequately to the special needs and challenges of smaller communities and the complex combinations of physical, mental and social problems experienced. These are the most difficult communities to economically organise. Inadequate consideration is given to the additional time and costs involved in providing the various statutory services. 'Townies' are often quite ignorant about agricultural areas. Just as importantly, they are also ignorant of the special problems that 'relative' isolation produces. Professionals are often no better in their attitudes. Organising networking types of support is also challenging in rural areas and with rural mentalities, because of the relatively small numbers of people with specific challenging problems. Because of problems of mobility and transportation (including the time demands), the usual self-help support groups are less viable. They are dependent upon institutional support; in the form of transport and other support. These potential support groups either need to be organised to meet at more central localities and actively promoted to maintain themselves, or organise more locally, incorporating groups and individual with a wider range of challenging problems. For this reason, service users needs and wishes, in rural areas and small towns, are poorly represented at district and county levels. The service user groups in the larger towns tend to be consulted for identifying the needs of all service users, because they are more accessible to statutory services. What is more, these 'reference groups' are often already constrained in their representation, by the fact that the 'agenda' of committees and working groups they are included in, are often set by professionals. There are benefits in living is smaller, local communities but these are more in terms of 'normal' living cooperation. The neighbourly help in child care, assisting physical disability and support of frail elderly is usually very good. Unfortunately, any mental health, dementia and 'complex' social challenges are generally less well tolerated and supported, mostly because they are less well understood. The principle of 'Mind the Gap' is so critical here. We feel that there is already inadequate integrated community support for people with challenging problems as it is. Lots of money and resources are said to be made available to the service groups that we are concerned with, but the resources and services that these funds provide, is difficult and complex to access, unless you have reached crisis stage. The access to information on services is often excellent these days. Posters, adverts, websites and information points, like libraries, surgeries, community centres and town halls, provide a wealth of information on the services available in the community. Everything from our Rights and Entitlements to the Single Points of Access and the provision of Integrated & Seamless Services. The process of getting access to community support, for any kind of complex need, is complicated, even for the most competent professional, never mind someone in distress. The process called 'Assessment', assuming you get this entitlement, is difficult and time consuming to obtain and is more geared to 'excluding' you than it is at inclusion. It is protective of resources, rather than enabling to service users. My research into this area has been thorough. I have listened to people's complaints in this respect for nearly 20 years. I have approached most Community Services; Health, Social Services, Child Care, Housing, Education, Benefits Offices and Police. Unless you have a very clear, simple problem, which has reached, or nearly reached a stage of crisis and breakdown, 'right then' you will not get support. I have approached these services myself, on behalf of service users, as a Volunteer, as a Professional, as a local Counsellor, and also as myself, dealing with personal and family matters. I all instances, except where the person can be shown to be in direct imminent risk of physical harm, I have (like the people I support) been referred on voluntary organisations, dismissed as not qualifying and even effectively ignored. The whole process of trying to get help, when in distress, or when your problems are complicated, or complex, is quite disabling. The frustrated attempts to get help at an earlier stage is distressing, disempowering and eventually contributed to the 'crisis', which then becomes the more intractable problem, which in turn; does 'qualifies' you for the limited, direct service you eventually get. The professional support is often good and sympathetic, but the process and limited choices available are often disabling in themselves. This is all the more frustrating when it is possible to compare the good quality service that one group gets against the inadequate and sometimes neglectful and even abusive service that other groups get. it is largely down to the 'fashion' of current policy objectives. This is our starting point. Challenging the self congratulatory character of Service Managers and Local Councillors, who have convinced themselves, because of the feedback of those who have managed to succeed in the 'qualifying' for services, that these are well organised, economically viable and adequate to people's needs. They are not and the very idea that this is the case is quite delusionary. The resources and funds, provided to our local authorities and services, are poorly and inefficiently used, with an over emphasis on sorting out crisis problems rather than stopping them at source. With an over protective paternalistic / maternalistic attitude. With infantilising and disabling policies. All this, in spite of the Glossy Brochures, Politically Correct words and phrases and User Representation. Most Service Managers and many established professionals become blinded by their own 'quasi-science' and 'quasi-entrepreneurism'. Substantial proportions of the funds are tied up in assessments, evaluations, studies and administrations. These are often repetitive periods of 'consultation' and implementation of changes, which produce results far below that justified by the time and financial costs. The context of our approach:
I should also point out that we make no specific criticisms of individual professionals. You will see that I mostly talk in terms of the Institutions and Professions. Individual professionals and managers may, or may not, have particular weaknesses and failing. Most of us do. But it is managers who make the decisions, concerning who to employ and how they are managed. There are certainly some very poor examples of individual professional practice. Where this is the case, colleagues and more senior managers have a duty to deal with these individual failings. It is not fair, or just, to publically project our frustrations upon individuals. It is part of our job, on this website, to point out the more general failings that are contributing. All sorts of conditions and circumstances affect how well we individually perform, we can not know all of these in any particular case. In the case of individual failings, that affect the support a service user gets, we would support that person in expressing their dissatisfaction and then support a complaint, if it did not result in a satisfactory resolution. What we can legitimately Criticise:
What we can legitimately criticise are the persistent institutional failures and repeated errors of judgment, which are a feature of the collective decision taking and implementation of a services. With the best will in the world, these are often the result of historical circumstances, which make them difficult to correct, but that is still the responsibility of managers. Often, the perceived failures are not recognised, or else remain un-expressed, by all those within 'the system'. The intention at the very top may be admirable, the mission statement can be just what we all want to hear, the commitment in the line managers may be dedicated & focused and the skills and competences of the practitioners may be exemplary. Even so, institutions can often be seen to fail to provide efficient, just, cost effective services within more than adequate budgets, These resources are capable of meeting all the needs and respect the wishes, of service users and carer's but can still fail to do so. That is so often the case and is just not acceptable. This failing is what we are setting out to challenge. All professionals have a duty to use resources efficiently and wisely, to use all resources available to meet all the legitimate needs that are identified and justifiably expressed. If this is not possible, for reasons 'beyond our control', we then have a duty to report and record these 'shortfalls'. We are too selective in doing this and the problems often remain hidden. The reason for these institutional failures, even when all the ingredients, equipment & staff are present in good order, is because the mix may be wrong, or the ingredients poorly blended together. More often, there can be the right attitudes at the top and the bottom, but poor mechanism, knowledge and attitudes for bringing this it all together in the middle. Sometimes there are groups of disgruntled professionals, managers and administrators, within the institution, who wish to sabotage the whole project. Interference into professional practices, by those who have no significant expertise, like legal and accounting managers, is a sure fired way of screwing the whole process up, and it happens. And so it is that otherwise good basic Ideas, principles, techniques, management styles, resources & required practices, can be implemented within rather rigid systems of restrictive policies, governed by misunderstood and over interpreted government & legal guidelines, focused primarily on short term financial saving. This kills the initiatives, the creative juices and intellectual flexibility which would allow all those ingredients to blend together, into an effective and responsive service. Put simply (which means the point will be missed by all those who do not want to hear); fear, ignorance, prejudice, inflexibility and self interest, inhibit the provision of effective services. If this institutional mind set persists for any length of time, and the managers of services become arrogant in their The justification for Criticism:
There is are some historical metaphors which are used to try to justify some of the persistent poor conduct & prejudiced attitudes; "It is easy to criticise, but what would you do in my place?" is one of these. Another is " Those than can, 'do' and those that can't 'teach' (or 'preach'). I agree that there is some 'truth' in these reflections upon life experience, but: I never ask, or expect anyone, at any level within an organization, to do anything that I would not be willing and able to do directly, and/or appropriately delegate and then take full responsibility for, given the same resources, an appropriate level of of authority and recognised accountability to do the job. The criticisms made are based upon proven effective practice and management, which I have directly contributed to, or have actively participated within. They are sound. I am happy to respond to any counter criticism and point to where there are existing explanations and evidence, or seek out the additional answers that will adequately support my arguments. Any criticism made on this website should be considered on this basis and understood in the context that, the problems described were experienced by myself and other professionals, usually on behalf of service users, who had themselves failed to obtain an appropriate support, or necessary and appropriate service. The support requested has been shown to be necessary for the person's immediate and long term wellbeing and can be shown to be in keeping with their rights and 'normal' entitlements; i.e. a service, collectively provided by their community and administered by managers and professionals, adequately paid to provide the services required. We are the community in Community Care. Professionals and Mangers are the responsible administrators of that provision. It is important that they are not arrogant, or dishonest in providing a fair and just service, to all needy member of the community, in terms that fit their needs and reasonable wishes and of a quality that fully protects all their Human Rights. There is no compromise, I am afraid, and we will continue to illuminate the failures and any exemplary exceptions. There are no badges for 'good enough', 'just getting by', or for 'clearing up the mess'; having neglected the person's recognisable needs at an earlier stage. There are no booby prizes either. Just persistent exposure of good and bad. In any professional work, errors made as part of daily practice are corrected during reflective practice. It is the neglect in identifying errors and the failure to correct them when recognised, that constitutes a failure of duty of care. Where these failures are persistent, then the service is deemed to be failing. This is the basis on which we judge failures of institutions. Most failure of duty are the result of misunderstanding and miscommunication. This is why we appear to be fastidiously precise on this website at times. Effective communication sometimes requires us to challenge bad practices from different angles, using a range of communication techniques, in order to break through the defensive responses to criticism. Good communication requires clear and precise expression, but also requires active listening. All to often, whatever efforts we try to take, to communicate frustrations simply, the defensive responses tend to be dismissive and disempowering. Service users are not always aware of the intellectual mechanisms used to trash their complaints and grumbles. Fortunately, for those service users, other service users and ourselves are more aware of the 'head games' used to justify the unjustifiable and indefensible. There are some stock defences that we are fully aware of and are well prepared for. We advise those trying to defend their position, to avoid using the stock defences, as they insult our intelligence. Standard Defences: "You need a 'specialist' service, we can not help you. You need to contact that service and they will assess you": - Used to redirect someone who had complex problems, including mental health, a drug problem, a mild learning difficulty and was on probation. He had general disability needs that did not require 'physical'; intervention and was deemed not to be eligible for an assessment, or a service from Adult Social Care. Although each problem was mild to moderate, his overall needs were substantial and had reach a crisis. He was rejected by all services and gets most of his support from Probation and ourselves. "All ours staff are fully trained and experienced, we know how to deal with people when they have problems": - An explanation used by a housing officer, to justify obtaining an 'Eviction Notice' for a mother with a disable child. They did not identify that the Mother was being treated for depression and stressed to the point where they were unable to face sorting out benefits claims and rent payments. Reassessed and backdated Housing Benefit would more than covered the rent arrears. Effective communication, between agencies, with a involvement of a sensitive housing office, would have solved this problem early on. We intervened and explained the problem to both agencies and the Child Disability service. "We have visited and assessed your needs and I am afraid you do not meet our criteria": - This is a common type of response to someone who's Community Care assessment fails to identify a significant enough problem to justify the involvement of Social Care, or a Specialist service. Sometimes the person is advised to go to a voluntary organisation, or to go back to their GP. Many of these people were failing to cope with everyday tasks adequately &/or were getting into debt because of reduced mood and motivation. They fail the assessment because the 'risks' are not immediate enough, or are not physical risks. "This is basically a 'Health' matter, you should go back to your GP and ask him to refer you to the Specialist Service", OR "This is really a Social Care problem, you will need to call Social Services to get help": - These are typical responses to people approaching the wrong service for a particular aspect of their needs. It is particularly frustrating when a person has both health and social care needs. Although there are usually cross service referral protocols, these are often not used. Service users, who are frequently feeling quite vulnerable, now feel quite disempowered. If they are subsequently referred back, this is often enough to reduce motivation to get help. The situation usually then reaches a crisis level. "You are on the highest level of mobility allowance, you should use this for getting about, we can not supply transport for you", or "Direct payments funding is now limited. We can offer you 4 hours per month to help with the social inclusion of your 16 year old, physically disabled daughter", &/or "We don't assess your needs as the carer, separately from those of your child. Your needs are assessed together": - These are typical justifications for not providing a more adequate service to meet the 'assessed' needs of a young person with a physical disability, limiting them to a wheelchair. There is an absence of a 'social' care plan, reliance is placed upon the 'medical' provision to address the disability. "We offered you support but you rejected it, there is nothing more we can do for you", "You have a chronic condition, if you refuse to take your medication you run the risk of having another breakdown", "There is no cure for schizophrenia, medication is your only hope of living a normal life": - These are typical example of the kinds of arguments from health and social service professionals, restricting the availability of 'informed choice'. The social care and treatment options available are severely limited, partly because of poor resources, but mostly because of prejudicial attitudes which means that longer term alternative options are not even considered. People are forced to accept the restricted options offered and their complaints about the 'restricting' and 'disabling' effects of care and treatment options are not taken seriously, and usually not recorded as complaints, or shortfalls. "To get a service, you need to meet our criteria, your problem is not severe enough at present, if you problem gets worse, please try again". "We are a second Tier Service, you need to go through your GP. They can provide to help you at this stage, we can only hep people who have serious problems" "We are a Third Tier Service - Your children are not at serious physical risk, you need to go to Family Court / CAFCAS / a solicitor, or ask Citizens advice to get help to sort out your problem" Delays in the helping resolution of a personal health, or social problem at an early stage, can have serious impact upon a person's physical and mental health. This leaves professionals open to criticisms, and invariably creates compounded, long term problems that are very expensive to deal with. Many people have difficulty expressing the urgency of their problems and in asserting how distress and disabled they have become. These responses 'feel' like rejection and are, under the circumstances neglectful. Professional services are brought into disrepute when the early signs of a developing problem, or the 'un-assertive' expression of a serious problem, are effectively ignored; remain un-assessed; and are dismissed as 'not substantial' enough. This is neglect at best, can be recognised as 'prejudicial' and 'discriminatory', and even 'abusive' and 'disabling'. Such approaches are unprofessional and the consequences are frequently hidden for months and years, causing unnecessary suffering. Signposting people from one professional service to another, and sometimes back again, actually causes an initial, disabling difficulty become compounded into a complex problem, or neglects the original problem to the point where it becomes chronic and severely disabling. This is an expensive, unprofessional and disabling approach to health and social care. It is also demonstrably contravenes the Convention(s) on Human Rights (Law). There are many more examples of crass professional responses to people expressing their distress. These will be added to this section over the next few weeks. I am sure that individual practitioners feel justified in their decisions and are often supported by their managers and the policy of the institution. There are limited resources that have to be intelligently used. Managers have to ensure the appropriate use of these resource and Professional are entitles protect themselves from 'overwhelm'. This is no excuse for the avoidance of recognising substantial & critical, assessable needs and recording a 'shortfall' in meeting a serious, expressed, service user needs. I can promise you, we are usually just delaying the inevitable and compounding difficulties for the service user and our colleagues in the future. This is very short term thinking and reduces the opportunities to obtain adequate resources and to utilise those resources most effectively. In many ways, professional institutions have lost their imagination and creativity, along with their ethical commitment. Most professionals are forced to compromise ethics, to meet prescriptive policy directives. The institutional structures have become 'disabling' and 'abusive' to staff, in not ecognising their failure to appreciate the contradiction between 'ethical obligations' and 'pragmatic circumstances'. We have every sympathy with the problems this creates but this is the responsibility of managers to resolve satisfactorily. We can help here. It is time we once more accepted 'social entrepreneurship' as a valid part of developing services. It takes more than knowledge, skill and a basic business sense to produce a viable and responsive service. Each service and team has to have its own unique identity and respond to its unique set of service users. We need real partnerships, at all levels within an organisation, where all committed staff, the service users and carers are informed and positively encouraged, to become incorporated as real contributors to the services provided. These approaches have been tried and tested. They work well and a usually 'cheaper' than institutionalised services. FACT. Step outside your box and see things from the Service Users perspective, even the stroppy and more abusive ones. There are good reasons for the anger and the absence of it , in some people, is very worrying. We are probably loosing them to Depression, Disillusion and Despair. We are making many service users, who are looking for the least amount of urgent help, tomorrows long term drains upon very expensive 'crisis' services. Sometimes, I wish I could just ignore what I see and hear, just as the 'detached' institutions seem able to do, usually providing many convincing, apparently 'credible' arguments to justify this. I know many professionals feel frustrated and distressed by the 'Catch 22' situations they find themselves in. The institutional demands upon them are highly inefficient and distracting to their vocational purpose. I am sure many service users and carers feel the same way. The ones that I meet certainly do. Most want to do something for themselves and families, but are unable to get that little bit of practical help to DIY with support and guidance. Unfortunately they / we live with the consequences of inadequate support. It is difficult to ignore the problems at this level. This page is still in the stage of preparation. | More Recent
Glossary: Reasonable:
Having the quality of being 'reasoned'; acceptable in ordinary, rational and linguistic terms; open to consideration and discussion. Include:
As connotation by the concept of 'inclusion', or 'inclusivity', the active process of accepting and involving people on, equal terms wiat adequate opportunity and 'informed choice'. Connotated:
Adj. A term arising out of 'connotation' an representing the establishment of a 'meaning' arising out of Disabled:
Social circumstances and social attitudes (including professional attitudes and theory) 'disable' people, by neglecting to enable and ensure 'inclusion' and 'access' to ordinary human opportunities, experiences and resources. Sometimes social and professional attitudes even actively 'exclude' people from valid opportunities and chosen, valid experiences. Note:
t is not unusual for vulnerable and distressed people, and those challenged by a disability, to be challenged in terms of their social behaviour, where most others, who's behaviour is more abusive and insensitive, remain unchallenged. Any form of social disablement is a form of prejudice and can be abusive. NOTE:
This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright:
Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
