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.

According to RMW it's fine and dandy and should be done at every opportunity.

Had my solicitor done this on my case I would have sacked him.

Like, obvs I’m not a barrister, but it seems to me that posting on Mumsnet about your own work using your professional name outside of the very specific context of a MNHQ facilitated guest post with live moderation could in itself be considered a breach of CD5?

Especially if your posts could be interpreted, even mistakenly interpreted, as intimidating?

Surely the professional approach is not to engage with anonymous critics and let your professionalism in court speak for itself?

Nic? Is that you dear?

This is what I don't understand. So if I'm involved in a case/work HR issue/whatever, it's totally OK to come and shout at the people I disagree with and those I'm also involved in legal proceedings with here on Mumsnet?

I mean, practically I'd love that - all for debate and discussion of the issues, as we've strived here to destroy #nodebate. Bring it on!

But I'm perplexed at this particular personage finding our platform a necessary one right now.

Yes I would be very worried that a lawyer posting on here in regards to an involved (especially if ongoing) case would be a breach of the duty.

I imagine SWE has a social media policy (the HCPC does) does the law profession have one?

I’m not sure a deleted post proves much other than a post has been deleted. I guess I’d have to know what the posts said to know if it was discriminatory. If they were discriminatory at least Mumsnet acted quickly to remove them.

"But I'm perplexed at this particular personage finding our platform a necessary one right now"

@pombear Honestly it's either because they get a kick out constantly inserting themselves into places they are not wanted in or It's because someone upthread uttered beetlejuice three times in a row!

I'm not sure which to be honest!

It most certainly does

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/uploads/assets/c7cea537-53f8-42a8-9f6d8ef1832a7db9/Social-Media.pdf

It really is a conundrum.

I have observed that there are few reasons why a particular poster feels the need to drop in to Mumsnet to make sure those posting any mention (quips included) of them, as a legal entity on a case being discussed on a thread, know that they are there and reading. I won’t go into them but I cannot say that any of those reasons, other than to thank people for their interest and support, is positive .

But yes. Trying to tie in the reaction to constant scoldings and condescensions to being discrimination against a person is perhaps more of a statement about not understanding female socialisation than other conclusions.

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

You obviously haven’t spent enough time here lately. There have been heaps of deletions lately due to PBP posting on threads.

I write and speak regularly about matters in which I have been (or rather more rarely am) involved.

I believe I am well aware where the professional boundaries are.

But thank you for reminding me.

Life is a bit short to worry about all possible mistaken interpretations of my actions.

Goodnight.

The deletion messages on this thread (I can only find a few) don’t cite discriminatory content as the reason for deletion.

1. I'm glad you're not lonely RMW. A full life is a good life.

2. Mumsnet as a resource? You're watching but have you considered it as a destructive activity? Also you're using 'gender crit' as an insult, but I suspect many of us here see that word and it passes us by. We know who we are and what we're doing and 'gender crit' as a label is what some of you have put on us - we're here to support women's rights and those of vulnerable people The 'crit' label circulates between a very specific group of TRAs and many of us see you and your connections.

3. thankfully we have Sex Matters and other grass-roots organisations to challenge what you call 'misunderstandings' about legal matters.

4. I'm glad you don't feel like a victim. though it must be very challenging right now when many of us women are looking back over back room influencing over the last 30 years and realising the gradual destruction of women's rights driven by 'trans protections'.

One of my posts on this was deleted. Tbh I was a bit baffled but I think it may have been suggesting that a certain person is not the Greatest Lawyer in the World. I came to that conclusion because of the problems with their book, seeing them in (unsuccessful) action and (cough cough) bundles. I can see why that might be unpleasant reading and it might be easier to assume that the world is bigoted.

To be fair, I think Robin has refuted the bundles claim as the mess was the responsibility of the solicitors and not the barristers.

From the link @exwhyzed posted

1. Comments designed to demean or insult are likely to diminish public trust and

confidence in the profession (CD5). It is also advisable to avoid getting drawn into

heated debates or arguments. Such behaviour could compromise the requirements

for barristers to act with honesty and integrity (CD3) and not to unlawfully

discriminate against any person (CD8). You should always take care to consider

the content and tone of what you are posting or sharing. Comments that you

reasonably consider to be in good taste may be considered distasteful or offensive

by others.

Well i think @RobinMoiraWhite you may like to revisit the rules you are supposed to follow. Because without a doubt most of the other posters here consider your posts to be distasteful. You certainly diminish the public trust and confidence in your profession. Thankfully the people I've used in the legal services have proved themselves to be the sort of people who don't do what you think is perfectly acceptable.

ITS DEFINITELY NO ME

Thank you exwhyzed I'll leave the rest unsaid.

(Oh and fun username)

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

I just looked back to find the deleted tweets. Gosh! Hyperbole much? Two? So no, I take it back- not any PBP activity.

One tweet I believe mentioned a review of a book? Is that correct? Are we not allowed to mention a book review that an author doesn’t agree with now?

Considering how the author was here on MN promoting said book very often, it seems asymmetrical and not really proportionate that a professional review of that book that was too often mentioned before release cannot be mentioned.

So I've just looked back through the whole thread. There are only 2 deleted messages. One was probably an accidental "misgendering" which is hardly discriminatory.

Do NOT mention the B word. Robin will be back at 3.30am getting upset about it..... again.

👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

I always liked an episode of Catchphrase.

reasonably consider to be in good taste may be considered distasteful or offensive

I reasonably don’t think posting on a support thread for a rape survivor that a barrister will be cross examining is at all in good taste.

And they wonder why they are not well received on this forum.
Honestly it's like debating with a TRA /MRA on twitter!

What she said. You invaded a place of support for a rape survivor. You could have achieved your aims through other means, but you chose not to.

So yes, people are pretty mean to you on this site but I am afraid due to your actions, and nothing to do with your gender identity, i have only the tiniest of tiny violins for you.