Page 4 | To think this social worker should have been struck off?

SilencednotSilent · 2021-04-03T20:28:23+00:00

[[https://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: [[https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/media/3704/decision-kershaw-s.pdf]] AIBU?

ismiseeire · 04/04/2021 07:13

I have never heard such shite in all my life. Well, correction. I've heard similar lies and it is bizarre what courts believe. It's absolutely unbelievable that some people will try to defend him! Disgusting in fact. Are you his new girlfriend @hatgirl?

hatgirl · 04/04/2021 07:26

I've not defended anything. I've made it clear I don't agree with the decision.

If you read what I have written I am trying to reassure people that he isn't working as a social worker, hadn't been for some time and wasn't at work or working with vulnerable children when he committed the offence.

Again as I've said elsewhere on the thread I almost hope there is much more to this that we aren't aware of because the decision is jarringly out of kilter with the usual decision making process of the social work regulator.

If you just jump on everyone who tries to unpick it all a bit (because it's a really odd decision and as a social worker I'm trying to understand how it's been arrived at) then how can we have a sensible conversation about it?

ismiseeire · 04/04/2021 07:33

@hatgirl

I've not defended anything. I've made it clear I don't agree with the decision.

If you read what I have written I am trying to reassure people that he isn't working as a social worker, hadn't been for some time and wasn't at work or working with vulnerable children when he committed the offence.

Again as I've said elsewhere on the thread I almost hope there is much more to this that we aren't aware of because the decision is jarringly out of kilter with the usual decision making process of the social work regulator.

If you just jump on everyone who tries to unpick it all a bit (because it's a really odd decision and as a social worker I'm trying to understand how it's been arrived at) then how can we have a sensible conversation about it?

Unpick it when the fucker is jailed.

hatgirl · 04/04/2021 07:44

He won't be jailed. It went to criminal court years ago.

This is just about his social work registration. I don't understand the SWE decision and I'm trying to discuss that using the information that is available

It's clearly upsetting you but throwing accusations at people who are just tying to make sense of it isn't really fair.

AccidentallyOnPurpose · 04/04/2021 08:59

@hatgirl

I've not defended anything. I've made it clear I don't agree with the decision.

If you read what I have written I am trying to reassure people that he isn't working as a social worker, hadn't been for some time and wasn't at work or working with vulnerable children when he committed the offence.

Again as I've said elsewhere on the thread I almost hope there is much more to this that we aren't aware of because the decision is jarringly out of kilter with the usual decision making process of the social work regulator.

If you just jump on everyone who tries to unpick it all a bit (because it's a really odd decision and as a social worker I'm trying to understand how it's been arrived at) then how can we have a sensible conversation about it?

Can he get another job as a SW once his licence is not suspended anymore?

RuggeryBuggery · 04/04/2021 09:03

I hope, and don’t think they should have, taken into account him not having worked as a social worker for some time. That’s irrelevant because by not deregistering him he can go back at any time.
Although as per my earlier post I’d be interested to know if he would pass DBS enhanced checks as the burden of proof for being placed on that barred list is much lower than for being convicted

BigPaperBag · 04/04/2021 09:06

So she walked in on him having a wank? Is that right?

Clymene · 04/04/2021 09:19

He was working as a social worker with children's services when the incident occurred. Even if we believe his version of events, he clearly should not be working as a social worker ever again whether or not her currently is.

Steptoeshorse1965 · 04/04/2021 09:30

Otherwise committed and capable?? But devoid of professional ethics and standards it seems to the point where boozing and masturbation are happening?? What do you need to do in social work to get sacked-kill someone?? But then, that has more or less happened before hasn't it.

Lostthefairytale · 04/04/2021 16:45

Although I can't understand the decision of SWE I can say that I can't see anyway in which he will be working as a social worker again. This will come up on his DBS and no one will be giving him a job anyway. As an employer I wouldn't touch him with several barge poles tied together.

Spidey66 · 04/04/2021 17:00

Of course he should be struck off.

I'm a mental health nurse and the NMC would rightly strike off a nurse for behaving like this. I work with social workers daily, both within my services and others (e.g. children's services, if a patient I am working with has kids known to them) and would expect the same for them.

Original poster

SilencednotSilent · 04/04/2021 23:06

So far, 315 ‘well-informed and reasonable members of the public’ would require the social worker be removed from the register ‘in these circumstances’. Considering writing to the PSA before/near his one year review when they officially remove his suspension.

OP posts:

Closetbeanmuncher · 04/04/2021 23:10

I have no time for social services at the best of times but this is shocking.

Closetbeanmuncher · 04/04/2021 23:14

Considering writing to the PSA before/near his one year review when they officially remove his suspension

Please do this, no way should this creep be near minors or making decisions on vunerable children's care.

They've closed ranks, covered up and changed the facts. Discraceful.

Original poster

SilencednotSilent · 05/04/2021 00:03

Going to definitely call them and see how it’s done. Might make a petition if they refuse to intervene.

OP posts:

NeverDropYourMoonCup · 05/04/2021 00:49

Majority or all-male panel, by any chance?

RevolutionaryBiscuitsOfItaly · 05/04/2021 01:09

Looks like the panel didn't have the benefit of evidence from Child 1, who by now must be around 21, most likely because she didn't want to engage with SWE. It's most unusual for a case like this to go to panel without the victim's involvement, but here they had Kershaw's admissions to police, so relied on that instead. They wouldn't be able to consider any different account from the child, since she was not a witness in their case... her evidence to police and at trial wouldn't be admitted by the panel because it's hearsay evidence if she isn't there to be questioned. I think that's why they effectively accepted his bizarre version of events... they only had that account and no differing account from the victim. I think this might be an example of SWE pushing to get the case to panel against poor odds without victim involvement.

RevolutionaryBiscuitsOfItaly · 05/04/2021 01:10

Neverdropyourmooncup ... all female panel, according to the judgement

Nith · 05/04/2021 08:51

If it was a teen boy and an adult woman, everyone would wonder why the f she was masturbating instead of looking after the teens/being a housewife

Off the point, I know, but how much looking after does any teenager need after they have gone to bed, and how much housework needs to be done at that time? I suspect that many a mother has been known to masturbate at that time. I agree it's distinctly odd to get naked to do it in the living room rather than going to your bedroom, but that's a different issue.

Nith · 05/04/2021 08:54

He was not in his home. He was in the communal area of a home the child also lived in.

OP, the report clearly says he was in his living room.

Clymene · 05/04/2021 12:36

Nope, as a mother of teenagers, I've never masturbated in my living room while they're in their bedrooms. Because it's communal space.

He was naked, the door was ajar, he was watching porn. He warned that girl to come down and see him. He's a sick predatory fucker who should be stripped of his sw registration for life.

Original poster

SilencednotSilent · 05/04/2021 16:32

OP, the report clearly says he was in his living room.

“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.”

OP posts:

TheCrowening · 05/04/2021 23:11

@SilencednotSilent

OP, the report clearly says he was in his living room.

“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.”

20. He explained that he was in his living room with the door slightly ajar and Child 1 and another child were upstairs

He was in his own living room. I guess the child was his partner’s daughter or a family friend.

Original poster

SilencednotSilent · 06/04/2021 15:34

He was in his own living room. I guess the child was his partner’s daughter or a family friend.

‘Communal’ area implies a shared living space. They’re quoting Mr Kershaw saying it was ‘his’ living room, but it’s not solely his if he shares the home with the children. Of course he’s going to say he was minding his own business in ‘his’ living room, to make it appear as though the child invaded his space.

OP posts:

TheCrowening · 07/04/2021 00:56

I’m reading it as it was his living room, as opposed to a residential children’s home or his workplace, which there seems to be some confusion about.

Doesn’t make any difference in terms of the impact of what he did, though.