Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this social worker should have been struck off?

134 replies

SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 21:28

www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/child-social-worker-banned-year-20302285.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true

He was given a one year suspension, instead of being removed from the register, for engaging in sexual activity with a schoolgirl he let drink vodka. He had been watching pornography and masturbating in a communal area before the act.

Their logic? “The panel is satisfied that a well-informed and reasonable member of the public...would not require an otherwise capable, committed and experienced social worker to be removed from the register in these circumstances."

The decision by Social Work England: www.socialworkengland.org.uk/media/3704/decision-kershaw-s.pdf

AIBU?

OP posts:
Sanchez79 · 03/04/2021 21:31

Yes, I was reading about it the other day, the regulator got it very wrong on this occasion

Original poster
SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 21:32

Absolutely horrified.

OP posts:
GoWalkabout · 03/04/2021 21:34

I despair. The panel need some safeguarding training.

LawnFever · 03/04/2021 21:34

Wow that whole story is incredibly disturbing I wouldn’t want him near any young people especially in the role of a social worker

IheartJKR · 03/04/2021 21:35

No one gives a shit about working class girls.

They probably think she was ‘mature’ and ‘experienced’.
The poor social worker didn’t stand a chance.

cheeseisthebest · 03/04/2021 21:37

If she's underage and he admits having sex with her how can it not be rape?? Its statutory rape. Absolutely should be struck off and in prison

wingsnthat · 03/04/2021 21:40

It’s weird that they didn’t mention her age once…almost like they’re trying to hide that she’s underage by not drawing attention to this

I can’t believe this is happening in 2021

hatgirl · 03/04/2021 21:41

I'm very surprised he wasn't struck off when other workers have been struck off for far less so on that basis I suspect that there is much much more to this than the article is able to report.

However I, am also reassured that the person in question hasn't actually been working as a social worker for many years and no longer appears to work in the sector at all (although they have chosen to maintain their registration which is why it's come to the attention of SWE).

He has been struck off for a year.

Original poster
SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 21:42

Allegation 1: “ 54. In relation to the conduct that formed the first allegation, the panel noted that allowing Child 1 to consume alcohol was inappropriate but that the amount she was allowed to drink was not significant. She was permitted to taste the alcoholic drinks and was not given unlimited access to alcohol. Alcohol was not given to the Child in pursuance of causing her to become disinhibited. This is not a case, nor has it been alleged, that is akin to grooming a child for sexual exploitation.

  1. The panel considered that allegation 1 in itself would not merit a sanction that restricts or prevents Mr Kershaw from practising as a social worker.”
OP posts:
wingsnthat · 03/04/2021 21:45

Why is a social worker watching porn when children he’s supposedly taking care of as part of his role are upstairs? If he’s at work, he shouldn’t be masturbating, especially not near children

He heard her say “fuck this” and didn’t immediately jump up and make himself decent? He let it progress that far?

And the panel believed him?

Original poster
SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 21:45

Allegation 2: “ 57. The panel considered the aggravating features. Sexual activity with a child is in itself extremely serious and Mr Kershaw’s actions are further aggravated by the fact that he chose to masturbate to pornography, naked, in a communal area of a house in which he knew Child 1 was upstairs. His actions were undertaken whilst he was under the influence of alcohol.

  1. The panel considered the mitigating features. The sexual activity was not initiated nor was it invited by Mr Kershaw, it was extremely brief and was aborted by him...”
OP posts:
SameToo · 03/04/2021 21:47

Why was he naked and masturbating where a child he is supposed to protect could walk in? Surely this means he’s masturbating at work? Or that she’s at his house? So either is wrong. Fml.

Babygotblueyes · 03/04/2021 21:47

I am more bothered by the fact he found it acceptable to be watching porn near the kids. Who the hell does that?

hatgirl · 03/04/2021 21:50

Fitness to practice hearings for social workers have generally erred on being pretty punitive in recent years. People have been struck off for not keeping records up to date for example.

So this stands out as a really unusual decision in light of the allegations against him in comparison to other decisions.

Either he has deep pockets and a very good legal representation or there is an awful lot more information that was made available to SWE that the general public cannot know.

Original poster
SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 21:51
  1. The panel is conscious that members of the public would generally be appalled at the prospect of a social worker being allowed to remain on the register of social workers despite having engaged in sexual activity with a child. However, the panel notes the unusual and unique circumstances of the misconduct, as outlined above. The panel is satisfied that a well-informed and reasonable member of the public, in possession of all the information that has been before the panel, would not require an otherwise capable, committed and experienced social worker to be removed from the register in these circumstances, particularly in light of the weighty mitigating features outlined above.
OP posts:
wingsnthat · 03/04/2021 21:53

Perhaps they’re insinuating that the 15 year old had the same version of events as him

Saz12 · 03/04/2021 21:57

Ewww.

So the panel believed that HE was “interfered with” by this predatory child. Mmm. So far so dodgy.

.. so why was he wanking to pornography at work?????!!

MistressoftheDarkSide · 03/04/2021 22:00

Disgusting.

Considering the high standards Sws hold parents to with regard to protecting their children in domestic abuse scenarios, it smacks of rank hypocrisy to me.

I wonder if this is some sort of damage limitation because he threatened to whistleblow on other problems?

caveat - I am deeply cynical.

mum2jakie · 03/04/2021 22:02

That's a ridiculous decision - especially when compared to reasons why other social workers have been struck off:

www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/stoke-trent-city-council-social-424109

BBC News - Social worker Joanne McGovern struck off for teenager relationship
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22007881

FOJN · 03/04/2021 22:05

I'm assuming he was in the building in his professional capacity and as a responsible adult and yet he was watching porn, mastubating and under the influence of alcohol. Surely that's enough to determine that he's not fit to do the job. He was guilty of gross misconduct even before the girl entered the room.

Mumoftwoinprimary · 03/04/2021 22:06

Well - no - he shouldn’t be struck off - he should be in prison.

What are they implying the girl did - dive on his penis so the poor lamb didn’t have a chance to escape?!?!?

hatgirl · 03/04/2021 22:09

Reading the full judgement I think he was in his own home, not at work and not working, and the child was known to him and also living/staying in the house at the time.

Original poster
SilencednotSilent · 03/04/2021 22:18

If this is how a regulatory body is behaving, what trust can the public have in social services?

OP posts:
eatsleepread · 03/04/2021 22:24

What a vile pig.
Let's hope no one will actually want to employ him when the 12 months is up. He'll be seen as a liability, surely? Confused

Moonwhite · 03/04/2021 22:24

What are they implying the girl did - dive on his penis so the poor lamb didn’t have a chance to escape?!?!?

Pretty much...

I think he was in his own home, not at work and not working, and the child was known to him and also living/staying in the house at the time.

And knowing this, he was still naked and wanking to porn in a communal room.