Complaint 7: Actions by the SSSC open to public misinterpretation

As a social worker your integrity and behaviour are two key foundation stones for your career.

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has a code of practice which the profession has embraced since 1975.

But it’s not just about what we do in our working hours.

While BASW clearly defines the ethics of social work our own watchdog in Scotland, the Scottish Social Services Council, emphasises that all actions of its registrants outwith working hours also fall within its jurisdiction. The SSSC website states:

It is important that all social service workers uphold public trust and confidence in social services. We believe that certain behaviours, even if they take place outside the workplace, could question a worker’s suitability to be registered.

That’s a huge responsibility for every person employed within social services in Scotland. Breaking the law, in either summary or solemn cases, could mean being ruled unfit to practise your profession.

Instances of harm, neglect, child protection concerns, “inappropriate” relationships … all of these can come under the scrutiny and investigation of the SSSC.

To some it may sound harsh, but those in social services must be above reproach.

But what about “inappropriate” communication? When social media is a key communication tool, what we say, or how we say can also be interpreted by the SSSC and that Tweet or post could carry the severest of sanctions. This is what the SSSC says:

Inappropriate communication outside of work is also an area which we investigate. This includes breaches of confidentiality or inappropriate use of social media and electronic communication such as email and text messages. This behaviour could be exploitative, discriminatory or abusive and cause offence. This behaviour would question a worker’s reliability and may affect the trust and confidence of people who use services and the public.

So, the SSSC has the authority to decide what may or may not cause offence. That, also, is a huge responsibility.

Despite the repeal of the short-lived Offensive Behaviours at Football Act in March 2018, the “beautiful game” still has its ugly side.

And, of course the “Anyone but England” attitude expressed by some north of the Border is offensive to some. Some may dismiss it as banter, others view it much more seriously.

If you are interested in the “ontological narrative” of the subject, Stuart Whigham’s paper ‘Anyone but England? Exploring anti-English sentiment as part of Scottish national identity in sport’, published by the International Sociology of Sport Association, is worth a browse.

But what’s this to do with me being removed from the Register? Well, of course, absolutely nothing.

And to even be hyper-sensitive to any anti-English sentiment, you’d really need to be English.

I am English.

The reaction from SSSC chief executive Lorraine Gray to this particular complaint is, again, given at the end. Apparently this, too, should be referred to a higher court.

Complaint 7: Actions by the SSSC open to public misinterpretation

The SSSC’s mission statement, prominently displayed on the home page of its website, declares:

Our work means the people of Scotland can count on social services being provided by a trusted, skilled and confident workforce. We protect the public by registering social service workers, setting standards for their practice, conduct, training and education and by supporting their professional development. Where people fall below the standards of practice and conduct we can investigate and take action.

The SSSC also examines what it deems to be inappropriate behaviour outwith an individual’s role, such as repeated traffic violation offences. Therefore one would expect the organisation to apply the same standards to its own behaviour.

As a social worker with many years’ experience in a variety of roles, all my colleagues and I were very much aware of how our behaviour and actions could be interpreted by those we served, interacted and collaborated with; at all times ensuring we were seen as part of a “trusted, skilled and confident workforce”.

It was, therefore, somewhat of a surprise when a social work colleague remarked, and I concede it was done jokingly, that she hoped my harassment claims against Aberlour Child Care Trust would be investigated thoroughly as it was “obvious” that my case holder did not like the English - and I was English.

The reason behind this comment was that on July 3, 2018, the same day England met Colombia in Moscow in the FIFA 2018 World Cup, my case holder changed his public profile picture on Facebook to Carlos Valderrama.

My colleague assumed this picture of the Colombian football legend had been done as an anti-English sentiment, but given any comments associated with this post were private, there are many other reasons for this change of profile picture.

But given the wide range of ethnicity within my profession and the gravity associated with any investigation into one’s conduct within it, there would seem to be the need for some guidance by the SSSC to its staff, and especially its investigating officers, on the fact that those employed within social services are always aware that their behaviour, professionally and personally, is subject to scrutiny, and that they too should adhere to the standards that they are judging others upon.

While I accept that the case holder may well have personal, familial, social or cultural connections with Mr Valderrama, there was, naturally, some doubt during the hearing process that there might be a racist undercurrent. At the very least, I would have expected the SSSC to have been aware of how staff actions on social media platforms can be interpreted, and what would be inappropriate, ill-advised, ‘laddish’ and immature.

To quote Charles Lamb, who famously said that he supposed all lawyers were children once, SSSC should ensure that their legally-trained personnel have left this state behind them before exercising roles of great responsibility.

Response from Lorraine Gray, chief executive SSSC

Under this heading, you raise a complaint about the actions of a SSSC staff member. The implication is that the actions of the staff member on a social media site may reveal a bias based on nationality. In effect, this is a challenge to the objectivity of the presenting solicitor. There is a statutory appeal right to the Sheriff Court.

As with a number of the previous parts of your complaint, the issues you have raised under this part of the complaint do not fall within our Complaints Handling Procedure and you should consider appealing the decision to the Sheriff Court.