Anne Woodhouse v a drag queen teacher

[Seriestwo]

a psychologist is defending herself against charges of bringing her profession into disrepute because a teacher at her school complained that he didn’t like her anonymous tweets. Tribunal tweets is covering it.

the man who complained requested a screen so he did not have to look at the woman he is trying to have struck off.

Oh, and he’s a drag queen.

x.com/gussiegrips/status/1999410585688052115?s=46

The complainant was in the witness box - hidden behind a special screen as he was too frit to face the women & parent he'd been hounding for so long in her professional life.

Yes but the question was who paid for his barrister/counsel. There wasn’t one mentioned by TT and it wouldn’t be usual for a witness to have one in an FTP tribunal.

Just for your entertainment - this is his testimony detailing how he found her personal details when questioned by Naomi Cunningham:

"NC I wont keep u long. In May 22 the R had a child at yr sch and u learnt she had GC views
Yes. There was a lot going on then. I was in comm w her about exams. She signed off w her profess title and it clicked who she was
NC U learned her profess name as she wrote using her
NC profess name
JNC Yes
NC U guessed she may be the @ moose twitter account
JNC Yes
NC Look at tweet of 19 Sept 14. It starts w handle of another user. So a reply or @ them
JNC I put in woodhouse and these tweets came up
NC Woodhouse and woodmouse came up so u surmised were the same ppl
NC So u searched whole of twitter and found these
Yes "

No wonder the case was dismissed so speedily.

Apologies - I misunderstood.

@WoodmooseI was heartened to read in your statement that you found the HCPC panel to be professional and, I think, you also said the same of their lawyer. But, to get as far as it did, you must have had some negative HCPC experiences - which I won’t ask you to air publicly. Can you share any recommendations you have for the HCPC so they can learn from their mistakes?

Im a fellow HCPC registrant and have been involved in providing evidence for FTP investigations - both those that were not taken forward and those that were. In all instances, the HCPC set a high bar for what was taken forward. I think it’s revealing to set, side by side the ‘poor practice’ that directly experienced by patients and ‘no case to answer’ was found and your social media posts being considered in need of a hearing.

It’s really upsetting to me that the platform TRAs have result in social media postings being seen as more concerning than some of the treatment vulnerable patients are directly exposed to.

Referring to the post about trans women and men’s fetishes Ms Cunningham, who represented nurse Sandie Peggie in her battle against NHS Fife, said: ‘No doubt that is a statement that some people find offensive.

‘It’s also a statement many people consider to be true.’

And the more men try to shut women up who raise it, the truer it looks.

I’ll be interested to read the final decision but based on the TT account it seems very poor case handling on the part of HCPC is the primary reason why a no case to answer decision was given. The case fell at the first test. They failed to evidence that the account was “public” beyond one mention of a name back in 2014. They failed to demonstrate that a “like” was agreement with the posts. They failed to demonstrate that the link between TW and fetish was a false equivalence. They failed to provide evidence or comment on AW’s husband’s access to the account (which is relevant when assessing FtP on part of registrant).

Basically should never have got beyond the previous stage at investigating committee. I don’t think these cases often do so seems odd that this one went all the way to tribunal.

I also really enjoyed NC’s “Stop!” in response to the complainant almost naming his place of work despite it being made clear at the start neither AW’s married name or the school should be named.

I have a very very long list of concerns about the HCPC process - incompetence or malice? I fear the former but the experience was the latter. Much yet to be said. I won’t be saying it without lawyers!

A complainant is not represented. They are a witness for the HCPC who are taking the case.

Without revealing myself too much @Woodmoose, incompetence would be my first conclusion!

There are more still in the works:

Dr P: Puberty is not an illness
@Psychgirl211
Me next. I've been reported by Lyndsay Watson. He was harassing me here on X for about a year and went to extraordinary lengths to discover my identity, that essentially amounted to stalking. The HCPC have taken him seriously and they are considering whether to bring a FtP hearing against me. They've said my tweets are "harmful to trans people".

https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1999749514891083986

Why is any professional organisation giving Watson any credibility given the public exposure of his malicious targeting of individuals?

Once the concern is raised and determined to meet the (exceptionally low) bar for investigation it’s a one way street to investigating committee - there’s little to no facility for officers within HCPC to bring an investigation to a close without it being considered by committee. Committee will decide if there’s a case to answer for the case to proceed to tribunal. Registrants should have an opportunity to raise issues like vexatious complainants in their response at committee stage and it should be taken into account by committee.

Agree - total breach

The IC in my case literally ignored every single bit of evidence I provided. They stuck rigidly to the fact I might’ve offended the transgender community and did not think beyond that.

Article in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/02246534-54c4-4069-8b1f-10d79d769699?shareToken=13cc4ae721185916bd64855c6d563b69

The whole process is not fit for purpose.

He needs to be referred to his regulator.

Anne, you are a shining example of a strong woman.Standing up to targeted and vindictive abuse despite the personal pain and stress it caused you, makes you a heroine in my eyes.

I am at the same time horrified that it is taking the personal, emotional and professional sacrifice of strong women like you to ensure that other women, our daughters, our grand daughters,our sisters and our nieces, can pursue our lives and express the truth about how women are being limited by a minority of deluded and entitled men who are fuelled by misogyny and a disregard for science and logic.

I wish you and your family a happy and stress free Christmas and New Year.

Just joining in to say to Anne - so sorry you had to go through this process. I am horrified it was allowed to get this far, and it must have been incredibly stressful. As you say, the process is the punishment - and it silences women who may fear a similar experience if they share their lawfully held gc views.

It's good to hear there are at least some gender critical psychologists out there, and I wish you well going forward.

Even though that’s incredible why on earth did it take the HCPC take years to hear your case? A “case” of such flimsiness is collapsed. Which clearly demonstrates it was meritless. In my view it was vindictive, which obviously you cannot comment on. Your experience is very much a classic: ‘The Process is the Punishment. ‘

Also of note is the ‘ performative nonsense’ of the screen. That he was pandered to on this is shocking and the HCPC should not have tolerated it. Because it makes it ‘look’ like you were guilty. That he was in ‘fear’ of you. It was a DARVO by him.

@Woodmoose Hi Anne. I just read your statement on x. Absolutely horrendous. It is genuinely frightening how safeguarding principles have been demolished by this ideology.

Well done for sticking with it, I'm very grateful to you. I wish you a restful Christmas!

Merry Christmas @Woodmoose. I admire you enormously.

Good to see that this man's behaviour is getting an awful lot of attention on twitter X. Haven't spotted anyone thinking his stalking a parent or DQ act is appropriate for little children but still looking:

https://x.com/JournalistJill/status/1999544858906689544

@Woodmoosethank you so much for seeing this through, and I hope you are able to take some time to rest and recuperate.

I saw on Twitter/x that the complainant was given your details by Highland Council because they decided his being upset was more important than upholding your privacy. Firstly, thank you for posting this, because I’ve just learned that my eyebrows can move even further up into my hairline than I thought. Secondly, are you going to take action against them for the data breach? (I hear NC knows someone who is rather good at privacy law!) If you decide you want to do this, I would want to chip into your fundraiser - and I’m sure plenty of other MN gardeners would be willing to join in