Social Worker Tribunal

The irony here is that RMW is a professional, governed by a professional standards code, commenting on a case in which they were involved in attempting to find against a professional citing breach of THEIR professional standards code.

One of the reasons that whole case was dropped was based on the mitigation that the professional did not identify themselves publicly as a professional of that genre when commenting not-publicly.

Yet, here we have the legal professional, also bound by a code of conduct, loudly and persistently identifying themselves as a professional bound by that code while commenting very publicly in a really unprofessional way.

What's the mitigation here?

I have literally no shits to give about your gender identity but I find your posting on cases you're involved in inexplicable. Your tone is really unpleasant and your dismissal of anyone with any criticism of you or your cases as a <insert offensive generalisation/acronym/insult here> is not helpful.

When you create and display comments to or about you, do you pay them alongside your posts too?

That you seen not a single other professional posting as you do, that not one of your colleagues in any of those other cases have popped up here with you, that you see no commenting on social media from say an arresting policemen in a criminal case, or the coroner in death report should give you pause for thought and reflection.

Also, like others have said, using the term ‘gender crits’ is dehumanising. Are feminists ‘critters’ to anyone using the abbreviation ?

Do those posters understand that if anyone referred to trans people as ‘the transes’ or just ‘transes’ they would be deleted because that is various degrees of dehumanising people?

And rightly so to that they should be deleted on these boards. We all follow talk guidelines and using derogatory shortenings like this at the very least should be considered uncivil.

It is quite remarkable to see how some posters refer to people who don’t believe that gender identity should be prioritised above sex where sex matters. We see a number of versions : ‘the GCs’ or just GCs, and now ‘crits’. All seek to dehumanise people who feel that in some instances sex should be prioritised to make it is easier to discredit them at the very least, or at worst to monster them in various ways.

Oooh! I just looked it up and it turns out, I don’t need to be a barrister to have an opinion as it’s based on public perception!

And us Mumsnetters are pretty much the modern day equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus, hence such enormous political, media and commercial interest in our opinions. Much cheaper to check in with Mumsnet than run a focus group.

Quite a few interesting bits and bobs in this pdf of the Bar Standards Board.

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/uploads/assets/f0d114af-9c5a-4be4-9dbffa9f80b1e47f/8c50a665-79ee-4bfa-b36eb5c138798d72/Part-2-Code-of-Conduct18092019092228.pdf

From the guidance section gC26 & gC16 seem relevant and gC24 seems pertinent in relation to Sarah’s thread?

and of course c12 covers those of us who have been dismissively referred to as ‘gender crit’ this evening.

I would’ve thought a barrister would be careful to always use person-inclusive phrasing, eg ‘people with gender critical beliefs’ just as we try to always use ‘transgender person’ rather than use ‘transgender’ as a noun, which would be (rightly) perceived as dehumanising.

I’m not sure I’ve added it up correctly so I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this

rC8, rC9, rC12 = possible breeches of CD3, CD5 & CD8?

Have I missed any?

I suspect it motivates some extra gardening, so not all bad!

This is a really important point

Along with schools that are very complicit in transitioning young children and not flagging any of it in the way that they would other potentially ethically troubling circumstances. When you look at how Fabricated Induced Illness presents there are many parallels for eg and the consideration of potential harm should come first and foremost

Given the interim Cass Report, the statement from the ACP today, the lack of finding from SWE against this SW, the Forster ruling, the exposure of the lack of safeguarding (and potentially much worse) around Mermaids....

Professionals involved in the care, education, safeguarding and support of young people need to critically analyse their own beliefs, judgements, biases and experiences and look for the best evidence for decision making. They also need to be able to defend that decision making and to be able to demonstrate 'best interests' thinking at all times.

Professional bodies need to be not only aware of the changing landscape here, and of the rapidly evolving legal clarity but they should be ahead of it, asking for it and accurately appraising their members of it.

No I agree that really boiled my piss. It was the very height of bad taste. Unfortunately because she was defending her none roll in the b fiasco she was found to have not done anything wrong.

I don't have a problem if she wants to comment on threads that aren't cases she is working on. I'm sure on other threads I'd find her posts interesting and a welcome addition to the thread. But when it's threads about the cases she is employed on then that just feels grubby and so very wrong and unprofessional. It also comes across as intimidating. Like look we can find you wherever you hide. Now you would think RMW would have realised this by now and thought you know what I'll stay away from commenting on threads involving cases I'm working on, but no not Robin. She just doubles down.

Anyway, point taken on the fact swe do not themselves conduct family interviews but they regulate those who do.

I still believe that any group which regulates workers regularly involved in very emotional interviews should be capable of conducting such interviews themselves as well I.e. independent interviews without fear or favour according to the regulation as it currently stands not how some want it to be...

What she said. You invaded a place of support for a rape survivor. You could have achieved your aims through other means, but you chose not to.

So yes, people are pretty mean to you on this site but I am afraid due to your actions, and nothing to do with your gender identity, i have only the tiniest of tiny violins for you.

And they wonder why they are not well received on this forum.
Honestly it's like debating with a TRA /MRA on twitter!

reasonably consider to be in good taste may be considered distasteful or offensive

I reasonably don’t think posting on a support thread for a rape survivor that a barrister will be cross examining is at all in good taste.

I always liked an episode of Catchphrase.

Do NOT mention the B word. Robin will be back at 3.30am getting upset about it..... again.

👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

So I've just looked back through the whole thread. There are only 2 deleted messages. One was probably an accidental "misgendering" which is hardly discriminatory.

You will note some deleted posts in breach of Mumsnet’s guidelines on discriminatory behaviour. That rather proves the point, doesn’t it?

I just looked back to find the deleted tweets. Gosh! Hyperbole much? Two? So no, I take it back- not any PBP activity.

One tweet I believe mentioned a review of a book? Is that correct? Are we not allowed to mention a book review that an author doesn’t agree with now?

Considering how the author was here on MN promoting said book very often, it seems asymmetrical and not really proportionate that a professional review of that book that was too often mentioned before release cannot be mentioned.

Thank you exwhyzed I'll leave the rest unsaid.

(Oh and fun username)

ITS DEFINITELY NO ME

From the link @exwhyzed posted

1. Comments designed to demean or insult are likely to diminish public trust and

confidence in the profession (CD5). It is also advisable to avoid getting drawn into

heated debates or arguments. Such behaviour could compromise the requirements

for barristers to act with honesty and integrity (CD3) and not to unlawfully

discriminate against any person (CD8). You should always take care to consider

the content and tone of what you are posting or sharing. Comments that you

reasonably consider to be in good taste may be considered distasteful or offensive

by others.

Well i think @RobinMoiraWhite you may like to revisit the rules you are supposed to follow. Because without a doubt most of the other posters here consider your posts to be distasteful. You certainly diminish the public trust and confidence in your profession. Thankfully the people I've used in the legal services have proved themselves to be the sort of people who don't do what you think is perfectly acceptable.

To be fair, I think Robin has refuted the bundles claim as the mess was the responsibility of the solicitors and not the barristers.

One of my posts on this was deleted. Tbh I was a bit baffled but I think it may have been suggesting that a certain person is not the Greatest Lawyer in the World. I came to that conclusion because of the problems with their book, seeing them in (unsuccessful) action and (cough cough) bundles. I can see why that might be unpleasant reading and it might be easier to assume that the world is bigoted.

1. I'm glad you're not lonely RMW. A full life is a good life.

2. Mumsnet as a resource? You're watching but have you considered it as a destructive activity? Also you're using 'gender crit' as an insult, but I suspect many of us here see that word and it passes us by. We know who we are and what we're doing and 'gender crit' as a label is what some of you have put on us - we're here to support women's rights and those of vulnerable people The 'crit' label circulates between a very specific group of TRAs and many of us see you and your connections.

3. thankfully we have Sex Matters and other grass-roots organisations to challenge what you call 'misunderstandings' about legal matters.

4. I'm glad you don't feel like a victim. though it must be very challenging right now when many of us women are looking back over back room influencing over the last 30 years and realising the gradual destruction of women's rights driven by 'trans protections'.

The deletion messages on this thread (I can only find a few) don’t cite discriminatory content as the reason for deletion.

I write and speak regularly about matters in which I have been (or rather more rarely am) involved.

I believe I am well aware where the professional boundaries are.

But thank you for reminding me.

Life is a bit short to worry about all possible mistaken interpretations of my actions.

Goodnight.

You will note some deleted posts in breach of Mumsnet’s guidelines on discriminatory behaviour. That rather proves the point, doesn’t it?

You obviously haven’t spent enough time here lately. There have been heaps of deletions lately due to PBP posting on threads.

It really is a conundrum.

I have observed that there are few reasons why a particular poster feels the need to drop in to Mumsnet to make sure those posting any mention (quips included) of them, as a legal entity on a case being discussed on a thread, know that they are there and reading. I won’t go into them but I cannot say that any of those reasons, other than to thank people for their interest and support, is positive .

But yes. Trying to tie in the reaction to constant scoldings and condescensions to being discrimination against a person is perhaps more of a statement about not understanding female socialisation than other conclusions.

It most certainly does

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/uploads/assets/c7cea537-53f8-42a8-9f6d8ef1832a7db9/Social-Media.pdf