I see you have (anonymously) contacted my employer — again. I have been happy to correct them on your claims about me and provide evidence as to why they are false, as I will with any party who has cause to be interested in your behaviour.
I can only assume this is in response to my publicly expressing disappointment at the decision of some prominent social workers, including representatives of BASW leadership, to allow themselves to interviewed at a recent corporate awards event by the magazine you now work for, given the magazine’s, at times, very problematic output, and also your own well-known problematic output and worrying behaviour on- and off-line. I restate that disappointment here. It reflects ill on them and on the social work profession to be associated with you and the magazine you work for.
It no longer surprises me that, even as a social worker with something of a public profile, you appear wholly incapable of dealing with any criticism of your output or conduct — that has been a consistent feature over the years. Nor does it surprise me that you attempt to smear people who express legitimate concerns and valid criticisms — which you could address directly but choose not to — as harassers and abusers. Again, a consistent feature has been your eagerness to ascribe your own concerning behaviour to others.
It may be that you are incapable of a certain level of insight into the impact of your own behaviour on yourself and others. Or, it could be that you are fully aware of these things and deliberately choose behaviour designed to provoke, bully, unsettle, harass and gaslight people that voice their concerns about your conduct. Either is deeply concerning.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I do have some regrets about how I conducted myself at times in the past, when publicly expressing concerns about your output and conduct. There were times when collective concern about your output and conduct became quite feverish and I was certainly part of that. This led me to make some public references to personal and professional connections of yours which I understand may have been upsetting for you. For that I am sorry.
Can you imagine, then, what it must be like for those people who have had you trace and contact them or their managers at their places of work? Or sent unsolicited messages to their mobile phones? Or traced and contacted them through other, unrelated online accounts? Or even, as you did with me, find out where they live and turn up at their house?
If you were upset about critics making reference, however oblique, to your workplace or — as is a source of regret for me — your partner’s workplace, can you imagine what it was like to have you leave voicemails at my workplace threatening to “track [me] down” (your words) at home, and then to actually follow through on that threat, exposing my partner and my young child to your deeply concerning obsession with trying to silence all criticism of you? I rather think you know exactly what that was like, because it was clearly intended to intimidate.
As you know, I was not intimidated by this, but my partner (whose preferred name you somehow knew — how exactly?) and my child were, as you would have known they would be, being a social worker. Or at least, I would hope you would have known that. Again, whether you did or didn’t appreciate that, either is deeply concerning. There is nothing about what you did that day which is in any way reasonable. In fact, it is, whichever way you look at it, deeply concerning behaviour.
You have stated that your detractors are “obsessed” with you. I think you may be confusing fantasy with reality. Everything that has been written about you is a response to the things you have very publicly said or done. No-one goes looking for your stuff. You have made it your raison d’etre to garner as much publicity as possible for yourself and your now numerous enterprises. It is not “obsession” to respond to something that worms its way into one’s consciousness by dint of your relentless publicity seeking. Believe me, I should be very happy indeed if I never heard of you again, ever. I don’t believe I am alone in that.
The vast majority of the concerns raised about your output and conduct are valid and based on actual, verifiable examples. On reflection, I do recognise that some of the concerns I raised regarding your ‘memes’ were a bit tenuous. I am sorry about that too. A lot of them were absolutely bloody awful though — oppressive, othering and corrosive to trust between people and social workers. They most certainly warranted strong criticism.
I have considered reaching out to suggest we discuss these things, but based on your apparent ongoing inability to deal with anything but uncritical adulation, I don’t believe you are able to reflect on or even acknowledge your mistakes. You will always be starting from a position of untruth. This dishonesty is evident in the recent, anonymous email you sent to my line manager (again, what steps did you take to find out that information?) where you claim that I have harassed and assaulted you, neither of which have any basis in fact, but are a transparent attempt to distract from the deeply concerning instances of your malicious communications (the police’s words) on my work phone and then ‘doorstepping’ me, not to mention the lies you have told about me on- and off-line.
You did all that.
You also secretly audio recorded the encounter on my doorstep and then tried to use it to give the false impression that I had assaulted you to the police when they arrived to remove you from outside my house when you refused to leave. This is extremely odd and concerning behaviour and has led me to conclude it would be unwise to speak to you without some form of protection. I believe I have very good reasons not to trust you.
As you know, as a protective measure, I openly filmed you on my doorstep that day, when you refused to leave or answer the question as to how you found out my address. Therefore, you know it isn’t possible for you to plausibly deny you did these things and, when confronted with this reality, you subsequently claimed to have secretly filmed me during this encounter, grabbing your wrists and assaulting you.
The truth is — and you know this — I was shaking your hand while guiding you away from my property, due to the entirely valid concerns I had for my partner and very young son, who were present (you chose to doorstep me on a Saturday morning FFS) and the potential risk you presented as someone from the internet who had followed through on their threat to “track [me] down at home” (your words). That isn’t right, however you may have justified it in your mind. And, far be it for me to offer you advice, but you really should think about the implications of what you have claimed: that I assaulted you (a false allegation) after you turned up at my house having “tracked [me] down” (your words) to my home address (a matter of police record) and, moreover, you were secretly filming me (I MEAN, WHAT)?. In saying these things, you are simultaneously admitting to tracking me down to my house that day while making a false allegation that I had committed an offence. I can’t believe that I am having to lay this out for you. But then, your friends and associates aren’t in a position to do that for you, are they? They are as much victims of your lies as anyone.
You have repeatedly made this false allegation that I assaulted you - in emails to me, to your social media followers and, recently, to an employer of mine. As someone who frequently threatens detractors with legal action (a form of bullying behaviour designed to shut down criticism) you will surely know there are laws and legal torts relevant here to which a person may have recourse should such false allegations persist.
I want to take the opportunity to say I do actually think you have made good, valid and interesting points over the years. It’s good that you use your platform(s) to raise issues of importance to social workers and the people they support, even if I question your motivations for doing so. Even where I disagree (which is often) I uphold your right to say these things, but I also uphold the important right to challenge them. This is because any good work you do is seriously undermined by output which is divisive, sensationalist and apparently designed to attract attention to whatever enterprise you are engaged with at the time. That’s fair enough, but in doing so in such a public manner, in what appears to be the latest in a series of attempts at achieving some kind of status or celebrity, in the context of such a sensitive and complex area as social work, you must be prepared to be challenged on your views and conduct. Transparency and accountability are fundamental social work principles, yet these seem to present particular problems for you. Have you ever considered why people challenge you? It isn’t, as you are fond of suggesting, envy, jealousy or anything like that. It really isn’t. You must understand that. While I agree some of the challenge, including from me, has been unhelpful and personalised, the majority of it is reasoned, cogent and apposite.
You will no doubt read this and persist in the belief that you are somehow the victim in all this. You will attempt to reframe the narrative to suit that belief. In doing so, you will lie, not only to those strangers online whose adulation you so dearly covet, but to those people whose trust you have gained, your friends and associates. Perhaps you will even lie to yourself. The lie will be that what I have said here is not true. But I have already set out how your lies are a trap of your own making and the more you lie, the harder it is for you to escape.
It is clear that many in the profession, including those in leadership positions, are all too willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. This is concerning, given the well-known issues with your public output and conduct over the years, including some of your recent and current output on the magazine you work for. Giving you the benefit of the doubt is not a luxury your victims can afford. We are in no doubt. And I, for one, will not be bullied or intimidated into silence.