Social Worker Tribunal

"But I'm perplexed at this particular personage finding our platform a necessary one right now"

@pombear Honestly it's either because they get a kick out constantly inserting themselves into places they are not wanted in or It's because someone upthread uttered beetlejuice three times in a row!

I'm not sure which to be honest!

I’m not sure a deleted post proves much other than a post has been deleted. I guess I’d have to know what the posts said to know if it was discriminatory. If they were discriminatory at least Mumsnet acted quickly to remove them.

Yes I would be very worried that a lawyer posting on here in regards to an involved (especially if ongoing) case would be a breach of the duty.

I imagine SWE has a social media policy (the HCPC does) does the law profession have one?

This is what I don't understand. So if I'm involved in a case/work HR issue/whatever, it's totally OK to come and shout at the people I disagree with and those I'm also involved in legal proceedings with here on Mumsnet?

I mean, practically I'd love that - all for debate and discussion of the issues, as we've strived here to destroy #nodebate. Bring it on!

But I'm perplexed at this particular personage finding our platform a necessary one right now.

Nic? Is that you dear?

Like, obvs I’m not a barrister, but it seems to me that posting on Mumsnet about your own work using your professional name outside of the very specific context of a MNHQ facilitated guest post with live moderation could in itself be considered a breach of CD5?

Especially if your posts could be interpreted, even mistakenly interpreted, as intimidating?

Surely the professional approach is not to engage with anonymous critics and let your professionalism in court speak for itself?

According to RMW it's fine and dandy and should be done at every opportunity.

Had my solicitor done this on my case I would have sacked him.

SWE do not investigate families. They regulate and keep a register of social workers. If you are found not fit to practice you lose your job. In this case they took six months "investigating" and took the case to a Fitness to Practice hearing where they found RM guilty and sanctioned her, telling her to "get training". RM appealed the decision. That was the hearing yesterday. before it got to the hearing SWE wrote to say they wanted to apply to discontinue. It turned out that they wanted to discontinue on the grounds that there was "new information". However there was no new information that was not available to them at the time but nevertheless the panel agreed with SWE who were represented at the review hearing by barrister Robin White. Because of this decision, SWE did not need to defend their position that a GRC literally changes biological sex (yes that really was part of their case) and that the regulator believes that social workers must not publicly disagree .but maybe in private to friends as long as they dont say they are social workers....

I'm a very lay observer to this thread. Is it normal for a lawyer to come on and converse with lay non-law people about a case they've been involved in?

*I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that."

Is this fishing for issues? I'm totally confused by this wording.

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

"Arguably" doing heavy lifting there.

Mate, it's not because you are trans... but I know you won't hear that.

Quick question since when has finding someone to be obnoxious been discrimination?

Anyone?

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that.

Where is the discriminatory behaviour? Can you give an example? Have you reported the discriminatory posts? I know it’s hard to come to terms with but often not liking someone has nothing to do with a protected characteristic and everything to do with their unpleasant behaviour. Has it occurred to you that this is the case here. You can hardly claim that you come here to debate in good faith.

Re RMW additions to the thread. Forgot to link.

Wow. This is....extraordinary. And interesting.

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that

MNers made me do it!

I did want to point out that SWE are gonna have to get their shit together pronto if the final version of NHSE’s new guidance re: non NHS prescriptions for paediatric gender transition is anything like the leaked version…

www.sacpa.org.uk/2022/10/17/young-trans-people-accessing-treatment-outside-nhs-may-get-safeguarding-referral/

… but it’s almost a shame to get back on topic when the wheels are coming off the derail in such a stunning way that we’re all like the little wtf meme girl in the back of the car:

You are, of course, entitled to your view.

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that.

Popcorn! quick! It's started already!

Well if it was me in your position I would be concerned about how my actions were being perceived by the public according to core duty 5, not so much because of this thread but definitely because of turning up on Sarah's thread.

However, continuing to post on mumsnet on threads that relate to cases you are involved in (even if you are being VERY careful not to post about the actual case itself) demonstrates to me a lack of insight and learning about how your actions were could appear to be intimidating towards the women involved. You were told this very clearly on another thread and yet you persist?

AHVE HUD A WEE CONSULTATION WI SOME PALS AND NAEBDY HINKS ANYONES DONE NASTY ON HERE

I am astounded how unprofessional your responses are on this thread and others. This will come back to bite you eventually.

I have not made (and will not make) any comment on the case.

However, if you wish to discuss ME, then don’t expect me to stay silent.

What do you perceive the professional issue to be? I’m genuinely puzzled.

Wow. ‘Nasty’ eh?

How very retro!

2016 feels like quite a while ago, but I reckon I’ve still got my ‘Nasty’ T shirt in the bottom of a drawer somewhere!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_woman

chicagoreader.com/blogs/nasty-women-attempts-to-sum-up-what-its-like-to-be-a-feminist-in-trumps-america/

you missed 'unprofessional'...