I’m just working my way through it. The reverse ferret in para 152 caught my eye.
“Letter from Mr Wrobel of the First Respondent to the Claimant dated 15 November 2022
^^
152. Mr Wrobel advised the Claimant that having considered all of the evidence, and her grounds of appeal, she had concluded that a final written warning was not appropriate or proportionate in those circumstance and should be removed. No formal sanction should be applied. He did not, however, revisit whether the allegation of misconduct was appropriate but merely addressed, and lifted, the sanction imposed. He said that the position had changed substantially and concluded that there was no impairment to the Claimant’s ability to practise. However, this appeared to simply be that the Second Respondent had changed its position.
^^
Overall assessment of the Respondents’ witness evidence
^^
153. Whilst we accept that at the Respondents’ witnesses would have felt uncomfortable responding to hypotheticals, and expressing their own views regarding the gender identity/gender critical debate, we nevertheless consider that overall they were extremely reluctant to provide answers to hypothetical scenarios put to them by Ms Cunningham or by the Tribunal. The invariable response to such hypotheticals was that it would depend on the context. Even when it was then explained that the context was the exact equivalent of the situation which actually applied to the investigation concerning the Claimant’s use of social media there was a reluctance to engage in the questions postulated.
^^
154. We also consider it surprising that virtually all of the witnesses were reluctant to express any opinions, either personally or in the context of the organisation by which they were employed, regarding the status of gender critical beliefs and whether there was discussion and debate on the issue in their organisation. We consider this surprising given the topicality of the issue and consider that there would be a reasonable expectation that those engaged in social work, or the regulation of social workers, would have a heightened level of awareness on what has been a high profile and ongoing public debate.”
And also the para 153-154 refusal of the employer witnesses to express any view on the issue at the Tribunal. In contrast to the non-reluctance of the investigator to express their own personal opinion eg on transwomen in sport when deciding to find her guilty. It all smacks of “oh sugar, we were so convinced of our own moral high ground, we messed up, now let’s frantically backtrack”.
None of them seem to have asked the question “what was discriminatory about these FB posts?” That’s pretty woeful from social workers, surely.