Social Worker Tribunal

[Manderleyagain]

Tribunaltweets are reporting from a social worker's fitness to practice tribunal. They are not naming the social worker - just initials RM. I believe the case has been discussed here before but as they are not naming I won't find old threads.

mobile.twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1581922786204753920L

Social Work England found against her for criticising mermaids and putting other gender critical posts on her Facebook. There were no complaints about her actual work. She is now having a fitness to practice hearing but SWE, a few days before the hearing, decided not to defend their decisions. It sounds like they are applying to withdraw allegations.
SWE's barrister is Robin White.

And that SWE are not defending it because they know they are in the wrong.

They must know they're in the wrong. The social worker was disciplined/suspended for writing social media posts critical of Mermaids. Given that it has now emerged that Mermaids broke safeguarding rules, employed an apologist for paedophilia as a trustee and is now being investigated by the Charities Commission, it would be a difficult case for SWE to argue. Frankly, I hope they issue her a grovelling apology.

Never mind apology, I hope she is awarded substantial damages.

Also, the social worker is also taking SWE and her employer to employment tribunal

Been adjourned until 2.30pm to allow the panel to decide whether SWE are allowed to not go ahead. They are basing it on the belief that there has been new evidence so their original decision to sanction has been updated. RM and her team are arguing that the evidence is not new so want it to go ahead. I guess to get a clean record and apology?

It would be good to get it on record that looking at Mermaids, Stonewall et al with a critical eye is exactly what our social workers should be doing (along with all the other little orgs that do training on EDI type things in our schools, not just the specific LGBT ones).

I hope SWE aren’t allowed to withdraw and this whole shitshow, and their role in it, gets blasted for everyone to see.

If they are allowed to not go ahead then people will make up their own interpretations of the case, if they are able to give their side then it is much easier to dismantle and show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

If they're not held accountable for what they have put her through, it's just sending a message to every other person who works in that profession that they have to keep their mouth shut, otherwise they'll be subjected to two years of hell, before the case being dropped at the last minute.

Not acceptable.

The official warning followed a complaint by a single person that posts by the social worker on her private Facebook page were ‘offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ because they criticised the concept of gender identity. SWE’s decision followed receipt of submissions on the case.

A single, solitary person.

It's stark, staring mad to have allowed these people to wield such power. In social work!

The very profession who you think would be uber aware of manipulation, intimidation and coercion.

But, answering my own query, it's probably why they have been targeted so relentlessly. Same with the police, teachers, the NHS and HCPs.

www.ebswa.org/post/social-work-england-withdraws-case-against-gender-critical-social-worker

I hope SWE aren’t allowed to withdraw and this whole shitshow, and their role in it, gets blasted for everyone to see.

I guess that will happen at the employment tribunal.

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?

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

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.

Can we watch these proceedings live?

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.

"Oh here we go" RMW? That RMW?

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

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

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

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

It sounds like none of the 'new' evidence is new. It's a long time since the forstater appeal employment tribunal & woriads. I expect they want to just let it slide because they don't want to acknowledge that gc type views are legitimate. But why now? What's changed recently? Is it just because they read the submissions and the penny dropped? Or was it because now the charities commission is investigating mermaids?

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

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.

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?

🤣🤣🤣

No this seems to be an unanticipated situation. I wonder how much freedom thd panel has in what they can do. Could they write a judgement that says there's no likelihood of finding her unfit, but not because of new evidence, but because there was never any reason to think she would be unfit & the regulator is inept? Or could they force swe to continue and defend their stupid actions, and have to stand in court saying exactly what they did and why?

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).

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

If not, should take about five minutes to check.