Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre

2»

Comments

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I'm confused. In the UK, where this guy will eventually be a social worker (if he gets qualified), where would he eventually work?

    In the US, where we have our crazy patchwork of insurances, social workers could end up in group or solo private practice, or join a private not-for-profit agency, or sign up with a governmental agency. Practitioners with his views generally attach the label "Christian" to whatever shingle they hang out, which steers folks not interested in Leviticus away. In an agency setting, where someone would be supervising him, that person would probably not assign gay clients to him.

    As Enoch says, this guy isn't in practice at this point. He's posted social media material many Shipmates object to, but I think a US university would have to come up with radically more serious -- perhaps criminal -- to take they action they did.

  • In the UK social workers generally work for local councils, and deal with whoever they get assigned (generally way too many people for the time available).

    My instinct here is that, while I think being told to STFU and keep his homophobic shit to himself ought to have been sufficient, he clearly thinks that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes so long as he doesn't say it at work. That's untenable and indicates that the original decision was the correct one.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I guess the question is whether the problem was the post per se or how he reacted when the University indicated it was a problem.

    I may be wrong, but I suspect if he'd shown his unsuitability to be a social worker by failing his exams, the University would have let him re-sit them, i.e. it would be seen as correctable, whereas his social media use was seen as not correctable.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    A homophobic social worker is as unable to do his job properly as a racist school teacher. Time has come to stop pandering to religious maniacs.

    It's not what he says; it's the obvious obnoxious attitude he holds towards people who could need his help in that job.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    The fact that he's fought the case with the help of Christian Concern suggests rather strongly that he is convinced of his views and does not want to give them up. If he were prepared not to share his views on Facebook in the future I suspect the university may have come to some accommodation.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    This is a link to the law report which I've been given.
  • I think that the judges were right, on the same grounds as those given by Enoch above.

    I have to say that the university appear to have shown spectacular lack of judgement and to be as guilty of having a closed mind as the student.

    IMO it should perhaps be a given that all people who are training for social work should have as an element of their course, and to be taken right at the beginning of it, training about equality legislation, differentiating between personal views and accepted social mores, and fulfilling the job they are training to do without favour regardless of opinion. If, after such an element has been taken, the would-be social worker still shows themself to be unable to differentiate between private opinion in private and private opinion expressed in the public sphere - which means Twitter, Facebook and all other "social media" - then it should become the case that the institution refuses to provide the student with the necessary recommendation/ approval to get employment as a social worker.

    <tangent> Can anyone explain to me what reason other than spectacular narcissism there may be for this student, or anyone, to take to Twitter?<tangent>
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    I think that the judges were right, on the same grounds as those given by Enoch above.

    I have to say that the university appear to have shown spectacular lack of judgement and to be as guilty of having a closed mind as the student.

    IMO it should perhaps be a given that all people who are training for social work should have as an element of their course, and to be taken right at the beginning of it, training about equality legislation, differentiating between personal views and accepted social mores, and fulfilling the job they are training to do without favour regardless of opinion. If, after such an element has been taken, the would-be social worker still shows themself to be unable to differentiate between private opinion in private and private opinion expressed in the public sphere - which means Twitter, Facebook and all other "social media" - then it should become the case that the institution refuses to provide the student with the necessary recommendation/ approval to get employment as a social worker.

    <tangent> Can anyone explain to me what reason other than spectacular narcissism there may be for this student, or anyone, to take to Twitter?<tangent>

    I would not be surprised if "Christian Concern" or some such body, persuaded him to do so. They had nothing to lose, the student had everything.
  • I find it interesting that the student was supported by Christian Concern from early on in the internal disciplinary case. There was an initial minuted meeting which noted some concerns to be addressed, but included a discussion about Facebook use. This then went to a Fitness to Practice meeting, which the student refused to attend, instead sending a written submission. When that Fitness to Practice meeting decided to expel him from the course, the student took the case to Senate Appeal where:
    The Appellant attended and was accompanied by an advisor and friend, Pastor Ade Omooba, a director at the National Church Leaders Forum, Connections Trust and Christian Concern Court record p8
    That appeal hearing upheld the expulsion from this course but offered an alternative course.
  • The RogueThe Rogue Shipmate
    What pisses me off is that his views are not religious beliefs. But perhaps I stray into DH territory by saying so.
  • Perhaps you're right, but such views are usually depicted in the Meeja as those of a 'devout' Christian :angry: - as though the only 'devout' Christians are those who hold them (the rest of us presumably being Hell-Bound Hereticks™).
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Perhaps you're right, but such views are usually depicted in the Meeja as those of a 'devout' Christian :angry: - as though the only 'devout' Christians are those who hold them (the rest of us presumably being Hell-Bound Hereticks™).

    That is the "Squeaky wheel" effect. The parts of the car that mumble and gurgle along are ignored, but the LOUD ONES get attention. Think Jerry Springer, Jeremy Kyle.
  • Pity the poor people of the diocese of Chichester: my spy tells me that at the last Diocesan Synod the founder of Christian Concern/Christian Legal Centre, Andrew Minchiello Williams, managed to worm into comments from the floor about youth mission some rant about "standing up for family values" and urged everyone present to fight against pupils being taughts about relationships in general and LGBTQI+ issues. My spy said there was a long and pregnant pause after she spoke before the Chair moved swiftly onto the next agenda item :grin:
  • O yes - God forbid that the Poor Little Darlings be told anything about normal human sexuality, in its myriad forms.

    Let them be kept in the dark, so that when they're groped or abused by a priest, they think it's normal.
    :rage:
  • haydeehaydee Shipmate Posts: 1
    Looking at it, they have directed a newly constituted University Fitness to Practice panel to reconsider the matter.

    The weird thing to me is that no-one seems to have picked up on his statement that he would give his views, if asked by a service user. Surely the appropriate response would be something along the lines of 'my views are not important here - it is not for me as a SW to tell other people how to live'.

    I have any number of views about how people should parent - if I was a child protection SW that would be completely irrelevant. It would be relevant to explain what the concerns were, what the evidence was for those concerns, and what the parents needed to do to allay those concerns (which are pretty much minimal standards by my views of what parents SHOULD do). Even if asked, because my opinions would muddy the water about what the parents needed to do, and what I was assessing and looking for.

    Just as - in a slightly different context - my opinion of my (adopted) daughters' birth parents are not something I need to share with them. I help them know and understand the facts, positive and negative, and support them to deal with their feelings. My opinions and feelings are not something they need to carry or consider.
This discussion has been closed.