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.

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.

Vicarious embarrassment makes me squirm.

No sorry, you do not get to play the victim here. Perhaps if you hadn't spent so much energy trying to destroy a woman's life, people wouldn't be so delighted that you failed. And SWE haven't heard the last of me either.

Glad to hear it @Glinner, the stark difference in the treatment of the complained about and the complainant is very eye opening.

extremely lonely too I suspect, hence any type of attention being better than none

while there's engagement to be had, the visits won't stop. Just sayin.

I think I am legitimately able to describe such contributions as ‘nasty’. That was certainly the word used to describe them by some professional colleagues (from outside the particular sub-set of practice) that I shared this thread with this afternoon.

Poor Robin. It must be awful for you.

And once again Robin pops up on a thread discussing a case where Robin provides legal representation for one of the parties involved in the case.

It's incredibly unprofessional, what are your colleagues views on it?

So now, along with all the other adjectives I’m ‘lonely’. Fortunately not. I’m privileged to have a full life, much of which (equally fortunately) bears no relation to the trans - gender crit axis.

Frankly, Mumsnet is a useful resource as not the smallest trans / gender crit incident passes without comment - making it a useful resource. Thank you - that’s really what keeps me watching.

It is a window into the gender crit world, and I will continue to use it as such. It’s also quite instructive as to what is understood and misunderstood about legal matters.

BTW, I’m not a victim these days - far from it. In my case that was 30 plus years ago when trans people did not have the protections they now enjoy along with other protected groups, quite rightly.

you missed 'unprofessional'...

Wow. ‘Nasty’ eh?

How very retro!

2016 feels like quite a while ago, but I reckon I’ve still got my ‘Nasty’ T shirt in the bottom of a drawer somewhere!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_woman

chicagoreader.com/blogs/nasty-women-attempts-to-sum-up-what-its-like-to-be-a-feminist-in-trumps-america/

I have not made (and will not make) any comment on the case.

However, if you wish to discuss ME, then don’t expect me to stay silent.

What do you perceive the professional issue to be? I’m genuinely puzzled.

I am astounded how unprofessional your responses are on this thread and others. This will come back to bite you eventually.

AHVE HUD A WEE CONSULTATION WI SOME PALS AND NAEBDY HINKS ANYONES DONE NASTY ON HERE

Well if it was me in your position I would be concerned about how my actions were being perceived by the public according to core duty 5, not so much because of this thread but definitely because of turning up on Sarah's thread.

However, continuing to post on mumsnet on threads that relate to cases you are involved in (even if you are being VERY careful not to post about the actual case itself) demonstrates to me a lack of insight and learning about how your actions were could appear to be intimidating towards the women involved. You were told this very clearly on another thread and yet you persist?

Popcorn! quick! It's started already!

You are, of course, entitled to your view.

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that.

I did want to point out that SWE are gonna have to get their shit together pronto if the final version of NHSE’s new guidance re: non NHS prescriptions for paediatric gender transition is anything like the leaked version…

www.sacpa.org.uk/2022/10/17/young-trans-people-accessing-treatment-outside-nhs-may-get-safeguarding-referral/

… but it’s almost a shame to get back on topic when the wheels are coming off the derail in such a stunning way that we’re all like the little wtf meme girl in the back of the car:

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that

MNers made me do it!

Wow. This is....extraordinary. And interesting.

Re RMW additions to the thread. Forgot to link.

I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that.

Where is the discriminatory behaviour? Can you give an example? Have you reported the discriminatory posts? I know it’s hard to come to terms with but often not liking someone has nothing to do with a protected characteristic and everything to do with their unpleasant behaviour. Has it occurred to you that this is the case here. You can hardly claim that you come here to debate in good faith.

Quick question since when has finding someone to be obnoxious been discrimination?

Anyone?

"Arguably" doing heavy lifting there.

Mate, it's not because you are trans... but I know you won't hear that.

Yes. You will note some deleted posts in breach of Mumsnet’s guidelines on discriminatory behaviour. That rather proves the point, doesn’t it?

I'm a very lay observer to this thread. Is it normal for a lawyer to come on and converse with lay non-law people about a case they've been involved in?

*I regard the behaviour exhibited toward me as, arguably, discriminatory, and believe that I would be failing CD5 if I did not challenge that."

Is this fishing for issues? I'm totally confused by this wording.

SWE do not investigate families. They regulate and keep a register of social workers. If you are found not fit to practice you lose your job. In this case they took six months "investigating" and took the case to a Fitness to Practice hearing where they found RM guilty and sanctioned her, telling her to "get training". RM appealed the decision. That was the hearing yesterday. before it got to the hearing SWE wrote to say they wanted to apply to discontinue. It turned out that they wanted to discontinue on the grounds that there was "new information". However there was no new information that was not available to them at the time but nevertheless the panel agreed with SWE who were represented at the review hearing by barrister Robin White. Because of this decision, SWE did not need to defend their position that a GRC literally changes biological sex (yes that really was part of their case) and that the regulator believes that social workers must not publicly disagree .but maybe in private to friends as long as they dont say they are social workers....