Social Worker Tribunal

The review panel seem to have ignored the facts and chosen to accept the SWE submission that there were new facts the original panel were somehow not aware of. Because they assumed. However it is clear that the original decision was based entirely on accepting the complaints of a single social work colleague that any challenge to TWAW and TMAM is beyond the pale. SWE have yet to agree that it is legitimate for social workers to question and to know the difference between men and women.

SWE investigates families and appoints experts to analyse complex situations.

They are showing an inability to conduct independent investigations and choose experts with strong foundations, in this case, the law of the land, not the law as we want it to be.

Can they be trusted to safe guard vulnerable individuals?

Having read the submissions on EBSWA I fear that SWE have been well and truly captured by Stonewall or another Trans-activist lobby group. They may have been a new organisation, but that does not excuse them for neglecting to use analytical and critical thinking. I just finished my MA in Social Work (last year) and use of critical thinking and triangulation of information from various sources were taught as being key skills.

I very much doubt SWE were employing these when they wrote this (from RM submissions)

42. Note for example para 69 of the SWE statement of case of 6th July 2022 which asserts … those who hold or espouse gender critical beliefs, generally speaking, are unlikely to accept that transgender people who have socially and/or medically transitioned from one sex to another, are as matter of fact, biology and reality members of their chosen sex* *(emphasis added)

I was too worried about my future career to post anything until the MF result, now I post cautiously on FB (I don't use twitter) but I'm like that anyway - always considering how what I post will come across.

I'm a social worker who has posted GC stuff on Facebook before I realised the enormity of the risk I was taking. It could be me at that tribunal instead of RM but it isn't and I absolutely stand by her.

in SWE defence though they were a very very new organisation when this complaint was made to them and they inherited a massive backlog of cases from the HCPC. I'd like to hope that them withdrawing their defence is them trying to do the right thing.

Using RMW as barrister suggests they are a bit clueless as to the politics and optics of it all, I can imagine some SWE case manager googling 'trans issues specialist barrister' and thinking they had come up trumps.

Do we have access to the earlier documents, such as RM's statement of case, that Sarah Phillimore referred to in the new submission but said that she wouldn't rehash?

Was the submission written in lemon juice on cherry blossom petals?

If not, should take about five minutes to check.

Well they seem to be saying that RM changed her submission between July and October. I would have thought that this would be pretty easy to prove or disprove (desperately hoping for a clear verdict for the good guys and SWE to be totally trashed by the judge).

🤣🤣🤣

So they read it wrong, and are saying that oops, now they've read it, actually it's fine, let's all just forget about the two years of stress and damage to RM's career?

I could perfectly understand if RM wanted to put it all behind her, but if I were a social worker I'd not be happy about that being allowed to happen. Have they done this kind of thing before? Will they do it again? Is there no accountability?

So it looks like the legal advisor said:

“as i read it, as RM made it clear in 2021 and did not publicise her content, ICE not in posession of new information. para 10 is the submission. as a panel you've got to make a determination on evidence under rule 52”

Rule 52 is available here: www.socialworkengland.org.uk/about/publications/fitness-to-practise-rules-2019-as-amended/

But as far as I can tell it doesn’t say what happens if the evidence submitted as “new” is not actually new.

The new evidence is probably the realisation that stonewall law is not actual law and Mermaids is very suspicious.

So Ive read tribunal tweets and I don't understand what they are saying? Was it tested as new evidence?

Yes, even on threads discussing cases that they will be appearing in in court.

I heard if you say "Bundle" three times in the mirror RMW will appear to tell you she had nothing to do with them.

To be fair to RMW there is no evidence that they were the one to say that. Someone did and it's very unprofessional but we can't say it was RMW

"Oh here we go" RMW? That RMW?

SWE have to apply to discontinue as the Review panel have the authority to agree or disagree with that. At the moment the panel are considering the SWE submission that they are withdrawing because of new evidence. the social worker is disputing this and says all the evidence was with the original hearing and they chose to ignore it. There needs to hopefully be a decision by the hearing to accept that submission of no new evidence and that original finding was wrong at the time .
SWE will offer no contest if the panel
do find that the evidence is not new.

Can we watch these proceedings live?

In my naivety I imagined the new evidence might be Mermaids being investigated by the Charities Commission. Too much to hope for!

These people are clearly fools.

They say they were not aware RM's Facebook was private (although it was in the original submission) that they didn't know it was only one person (again covered in the original submission) that they didn't see the full text of the messages or something vague like that

They are basing it on the belief that there has been new evidence so their original decision to sanction has been updated.

What's the new evidence?