I am as my name suggests a 2nd year mature student SW at an RG Uni.
I am also firmly GC.
SWE are the regulatory body and much like the GMC can withdraw a Doctors ability to practice, they can do the same for a social worker (assuming proper procedure is followed to do so).
The case examiners issued her a one year warning with stipulations on what actions she needed to take to address their concerns (such as diversity training/education and reflection).
She had the choice to accept this (which she did) or take her chances with a full hearing.
However, in addition to this sanction her employer (the local authority) have suspended her and she risks being dismissed.
This suggests (though I can't confirm) that RM's decision to accept the findings of the case examiners was on the basis that was the end of the matter and she did not anticipate further sanctions/disciplinary process from the LA.
As such she now wants to sue both SWE and the LA (Westminster).
The timing of Maya's case is of interest and it is possible that it's ramifications had not filtered down to the case examiners.
However, there is still a lack of clarity here.
The case examiners report gives very little detail of what she posted on social media (70 posts were reported to SWE).
There's a distinction between holding GC beliefs and posting/re-posting something that is offensive (and doing so repeatedly).
There's a lot of assumption here that the issue IS her GC beliefs but without the details of what exactly she's posted that's possibly premature.
As we saw with the Harrop case (and no I'm not suggesting she RM has doxxed/harassed anyone on SM) it's not about what side of the debate you are on, but how, as a regulated professional you express those beliefs.
It's one thing to say "self I.d. must consider the implications for safeguarding" for example or "women have the right to single sex spaces under the Equality Act" and quite another to post something that implies TW/TM are child sexual predators (as did one of her posts in referencing guides/scouts).
In training we are made very aware of the need to be considered about what we post online.
That's not just in relation to gender ideology but anything "controversial" from religion, Brexit to party politics etc
That's because the relationship between a SW and a service user has to be based on trust if it's to be successful - and that's very difficult (nigh impossible) if the service user knows you hold very different values to them (even if it did not impact your professional practice whatsoever).
Yes it was a private SM account but as RM has found, you can't make assumptions about the values other people hold and their determination to make yours public even if that was not your intention.
I firmly believe that RM has the right to hold a GC position and I do not think that automatically means she would be unfit to work with Trans people any more than an atheist SW could not support a person of faith.
I think any SW has not just the right, but the duty to flag any concerns they have over safeguarding and not to have to be fearful of doing so.
But, I also think you have to expect that as a professional SW you need to be mindful of how anything you post in SM could impact other peoples perception of your ability to practice.
So where do I stand here?
I honestly don't know without seeing exactly what she had posted, without further clarification on what grounds the LA are continuing disciplinary action and if the case examiners were motivated in their sanction by her beliefs alone or by they way she expressed them.
I know that might not be a popular post here being a regular (though I've NC'd for this post) but it's where I stand based on the info I have at the moment runs away to don my tin hat 