University course and anti-gay Facebook post.

[woodview 10]

36 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Would you like an antisemitic teacher teaching your kids? 

I've already mentioned Labour member teachers 😮

[Mister M 1,609]

10 minutes ago, woodview said:

The religious person coming down on homosexuality to a  homosexual client is wrong, as it is contrary to the help he is supposed to be giving.

Is the client on the social workers Facebook group? I don't think so.

Yes, peoples views can be difficult for other people. But some things are more important than others. And freedom of expression is very high on the list. Much less so for some people, and actually the contrary in many cases.

At the moment, someone taking offence seems to trump everything else.

Plus, this feels like the tip of the iceberg. It really isn't just about a potential social worker. As has been said 'professionals' can't do that sort of thing. So, is expressing such views just limited to manual workers?

 

I'm not an expert in this area, but I have downloaded the BASW guidelines and he does seem to be in contravention of their guidelines (see 2.2)

https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics

[woodview 10]

37 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Would you like an antisemitic teacher teaching your kids? Would you be happy if your kids were taught be a BNP member at, say, primary school? They've got them all day, every day.

In seriousness, it can't come in to the classroom can it. And that's the point. If we find out sweet Miss Jones the PE teacher is a BNP activist on a weekend, but sweet as pie in class, should she be sacked?

Then what, when we've got rid of all of them. We can move on to ones who are evil Tories, or nasty Corbynites. Then we can have just the ones who have just the right set of opinions.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

54 minutes ago, woodview said:

Well that's part way to the repression that some people want.

It depends what your job is and your public face is supposed to be. I don't want or expect you to say.

Social media is how lots of people communicate. So speaking about these unspeakable things is now confined to the hushed surroundings of a dark, quiet corner in the pub?

Not really a free and open and tolerant society is it?

Of course it is. If I feel the need to say whatever I want on social media without fear of being held professionally accountable then I could always choose another job.

 

Like most people, I accept that there is a code of conduct that I must adhere to, in and out of work, if I am able to do my job. 

 

[woodview 10]

5 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I'm not an expert in this area, but I have downloaded the BASW guidelines and he does seem to be in contravention of their guidelines (see 2.2)

https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics

What about 2.1

Respecting the right to self-determination
Social workers should respect, promote and support
people’s dignity and right to make their own choices and
decisions, irrespective of their values and life choices,
provided this does not threaten the rights, safety and
legitimate interests of others.

 

All depends how he brings these views in to work.

1 minute ago, JFKvsNixon said:

Of course it is. If I feel the need to say whatever I want on social media without fear of being held professionally accountable then I could always choose another job.

 

Like most people, I accept that there is a code of conduct that I must adhere to, in and out of work, if I am able to do my job. 

 

Depends on the job and what you actually say obviously. Would an accountant have to choose another job for being against gay marriage? Would a civil engineer have to choose another job for talking about immigration?

The issue is where is the line. I think the line of intolerance is moving well beyond wher eit should ever be.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

20 minutes ago, woodview said:

The religious person coming down on homosexuality to a  homosexual client is wrong, as it is contrary to the help he is supposed to be giving.

Is the client on the social workers Facebook group? I don't think so.

Yes, peoples views can be difficult for other people. But some things are more important than others. And freedom of expression is very high on the list. Much less so for some people, and actually the contrary in many cases.

At the moment, someone taking offence seems to trump everything else.

Plus, this feels like the tip of the iceberg. It really isn't just about a potential social worker. As has been said 'professionals' can't do that sort of thing. So, is expressing such views just limited to manual workers?

 

Ok, lets look at the potential consequences on allowing a social worker to express their views without any accountability.

 

Image a social worker who gave interviews on TV and to the press suggesting that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, being involved in case where they had to decide upon the future of child who had a homosexual parent.

 

It would be a legal minefield, and it's easy to see the ramifications.

 

The issue with many social media posts, is that just like traditional media like the press or TV, it's accessible by the public, and it'll remain in the public domain. The same standards must therefore exist for social media posts, as they would for the TV or the press, if people are to continue to trust that profession.

10 minutes ago, woodview said:

What about 2.1

Respecting the right to self-determination
Social workers should respect, promote and support
people’s dignity and right to make their own choices and
decisions, irrespective of their values and life choices,
provided this does not threaten the rights, safety and
legitimate interests of others.

 

All depends how he brings these views in to work.

Depends on the job and what you actually say obviously. Would an accountant have to choose another job for being against gay marriage? Would a civil engineer have to choose another job for talking about immigration?

The issue is where is the line. I think the line of intolerance is moving well beyond wher eit should ever be.

The civil engineer/accountant  may well have to find another job if they have brought such a negative press upon their employers,  that  their customers consider retaining them, or they start to struggle to find new customers.

[Mister M 1,609]

13 minutes ago, woodview said:

What about 2.1

Respecting the right to self-determination
Social workers should respect, promote and support
people’s dignity and right to make their own choices and
decisions, irrespective of their values and life choices,
provided this does not threaten the rights, safety and
legitimate interests of others.

 

All depends how he brings these views in to work.

I think the code of ethics is about how social workers work with clients, rather than how they should be treated....I don't know, as I say I'm not an expert. But I'm sure if you googled you could find out more details about Mr Ngole's suspension from his course

[woodview 10]

2 minutes ago, JFKvsNixon said:

Ok, lets look at the potential consequences on allowing a social worker to express their views without any accountability.

 

Image a social worker who gave interviews on TV and to the press suggesting that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, being involved in case where they had to decide upon the future of child who had a homosexual parent.

 

It would be a legal minefield, and it's easy to see the ramifications.

 

The issue with many social media posts, is that just like traditional media like the press or TV, it's accessible by the public, and it'll remain in the public domain. The same standards must therefore exist for social media posts, as they would for the TV or the press, if people are to continue to trust that profession.

That's right, at an extreme margin of the example, for someone with a profile on TV. This guy posted it on Facebook, which by confidentiality his clients shouldn't be friends on anyway.

By your example anyone in a profession is then silenced from saying things that are outside what is deemed acceptable by someone. Problem is what is 'acceptable' is already beyond what a lot of people think and say. peoples expression is being repressed further and further. As I said earlier, we've found ourselves in a situation where the offended trump everything else.

 

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

I think the code of ethics is about how social workers work with clients, rather than how they should be treated....I don't know, as I say I'm not an expert. But I'm sure if you googled you could find out more details about Mr Ngole's suspension from his course

It's in the link in the OP. My interest really is in the general principle in the erosion of what people say and where. I simply believe expressing views that people don't like has become more and more of a witch hunt.

We need a society where people are able to tolerate peoples different religions, sexuality and political views. We might find some distasteful, but it isn't as half as distasteful as an intolerant society.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

1 minute ago, woodview said:

That's right, at an extreme margin of the example, for someone with a profile on TV. This guy posted it on Facebook, which by confidentiality his clients shouldn't be friends on anyway.

By your example anyone in a profession is then silenced from saying things that are outside what is deemed acceptable by someone. Problem is what is 'acceptable' is already beyond what a lot of people think and say. peoples expression is being repressed further and further. As I said earlier, we've found ourselves in a situation where the offended trump everything else.

 

I did explain why social media posts should be regarded as being similar as other media statements such as TV or the press.

 

Here's what I said:

 

Quote

The issue with many social media posts, is that just like traditional media like the press or TV, it's accessible by the public, and it'll remain in the public domain. The same standards must therefore exist for social media posts, as they would for the TV or the press, if people are to continue to trust that profession.

So if the student social worker in question qualified as a social worker, and was involved in cases where he decided upon whether or not a homosexual parent kept their child. Can you see the mess that would be unearthed if at least one of the homosexual parents found out about the social media posts, and suggested that his prejudice effected his judgement.

 

[woodview 10]

4 minutes ago, JFKvsNixon said:

I did explain why social media posts should be regarded as being similar as other media statements such as TV or the press.

 

Here's what I said:

 

So if the student social worker in question qualified as a social worker, and was involved in cases where he decided upon whether or not a homosexual parent kept their child. Can you see the mess that would be unearthed if at least one of the homosexual parents found out about the social media posts, and suggested that his prejudice effected his judgement.

 

I get what you said.

My point is the erosion of freedom of expression as a whole, not just this guy.

You yourself have qualified that, by stating 'professionals' shouldn't state such things on social media. That is stopping expression of  a huge chunk of society on one of it's main communication platforms.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

13 minutes ago, woodview said:

I get what you said.

My point is the erosion of freedom of expression as a whole, not just this guy.

You yourself have qualified that, by stating 'professionals' shouldn't state such things on social media. That is stopping expression of  a huge chunk of society on one of it's main communication platforms.

I don't see myself, or others, being considerate as to what we say to the media/social media as being an erosion of a freedom of expression. I'm perfectly free to express whatever I want on the media/social media, but then I have to be prepared to held accountable for my actions. I am also free to be more circumspect about how I express my more controversial opinions.

 

Here is one of the issues with modern society, controversial or not you can decide! Increasingly more, we want the freedom to say or act however we please, but we don't want any of the accountability/responsibility that often goes with that freedom.

 

Without a degree of accountability/responsibility, many freedoms end up becoming meaningless.

Edited March 15, 2019 by JFKvsNixon

[Eater Sundae 12]

In this case, I tend towards the view that airing certain opinions which are in opposition to the needs of a particular profession will justify barring that person. Just having a contrary view shouldn’t in itself be a bar provided the person treats everyone fairly, but once you speak out, your opinion is public.

 

However, more generally...

 

As are some other posters, I am concerned about people not being allowed to have a view which is contrary to the official view. This leads to some people not being allowed a platform at universities - the very place where they should be able to speak. Let them speak, then argue why they are wrong. But not allowing them at all makes them martyrs.

 

To anyone who thinks we should not allow, for example, someone who calls homosexuality a sin and calls for it to be banned.

 

Had your wish to ban unacceptable views from being aired, say, 70 years ago, homosexuality would still be illegal.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Eater Sundae
Typo