Vexatious vagina man

Harassment is unwanted behaviour which you find offensive or which makes you feel intimidated or humiliated. It can happen on its own or alongside other forms of discrimination. Harassment is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. - Citizens Advice 

I was recently told by my daughter, in no uncertain terms, that to fully understand how a woman feels in today’s world you need to be a woman.

I’d agree with that. There’s no doubt male domination continues and thrives, and while it may be challenged there is a long journey ahead. Inroads towards equality are being made but these, though significant, are few.

So for a man to champion what he perceives as a female cause may well exacerbate the problem and be viewed as patronising interference in an area where his ignorance is an embarrassment and, perhaps, more of a hindrance than a help.

That is the situation I found myself in, and guilty of, but, while duly put back in my box and the lid firmly slammed, in mitigation I would claim that I did have the support of my wife on this fruitless journey. She was a willing accomplice, but, apparently, we both got it very wrong.

It started at a social services’ fitness to practise hearing that came after an 18-month investigation and culminated in my wife being struck from the national register. That’s another story and one I’d urge you follow on her blog (https://ssscandme.blogspot.com/).

But what really lit my fire were the processes adopted by that non departmental public body, the Scottish Social Services Council. Its hearings are part of the Scottish legal system, and, though a civil procedure, should follow the basic tenets of court reporting.

I was there as her ‘supporter’ and, as such, was prohibited from speaking. That became increasingly difficult in what unfolded in front of me.

I’ve come from a career where court reporting was a legal minefield. Journalists had to deal on a daily basis with such topics as absolute and qualified privilege, restrictions, fair and balanced reporting, cross-identification and so on, never mind the basic facts of name, age and address so you were covered if there were two Bella MacBellas living in the same street, or even in the same house. (I even chose that unlikely name out of safety! Old habits...)

That same meticulous care went into every single report, it had to, whether it was a breach of the peace or a brutal murder. Every editor and reporter dreaded the phone call when the paper came out that was announced in a whisper: "It's a complaint about a court case." If  the report was right, you were safe. If not, you were into published apologies or, worse, taking costly legal advice. That's why hanging on to your notebook was so vital.

To this day, even the smallest of weekly newspapers would be very reluctant to send a reporter without shorthand to a court, just in case…

And, of course, you had to follow the legal arguments, and the counter arguments, to make sure that published report was balanced, whether it was the splash, a sidebar or a short.

Now the SSSC hearing I sat through, beneath its sombre veneer, ventured into places I never imagined possible under Scots law though I am aware civil procedure is somewhat more... relaxed. I have never 'murmured' the bench and won't start now, especially when the chair was the venerable Andrew G. Webster QC, referred to as "the UK Government’s 'go to' counsel in Scotland", so I'll stick to the facts, though I'd welcome opinions.

In directing the panel to its ‘sentencing’ options, the SSSC pursuer presented four persuasive precedents as comparisons to my wife’s professional misconduct, a recommended ‘verdict’ that she was not expecting. Precedent, as anyone who had to take the law exams for their journalists' national certificate knows, is the second source of legal rules, basically ensuring consistency in findings when considering similar cases. The key word there is 'similar'.

The SSSC deviates from normal legal processes to use precedents continually from outwith its field of governance. Now as a service manager with a Scottish charity, the world of medicine was far removed from my wife’s area of work.

All four precedents culminating in someone being 'struck off', however, were medical. The first involved the multiple deaths of infants following heart surgery in England. This immediately struck me as a non-analogous case which Mr Webster would challenge, but he didn’t.

Then came the second. The was another case from south of the Border, eight years old and concerning the refusal of a midwife to perform three vaginal examinations. In all there were 118 points on vaginas and all aspects of their examination.

To me this was nothing short of outrageous and blatant harassment, given my wife’s case had absolutely nothing to do with medicine, deaths or gynaecological procedures. But, again, Mr Webster accepted this without a single query. To be fair, as a Legal Assessor to the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, he was probably very familiar with those precedents.

So, with a male ‘prosecutor’, an all-male panel and a room full of men, with the exception of my now weeping wife and a clerk, we now have 20-odd pages on vaginas circulating. I suppose it was then, I heard my white stallion neighing and looked at my lance.

In my haste though, I reckon I put the saddle on back to front.

With the official ‘decision’ duly digitally nailed on the SSSC’s online olde yew tree, just falling short of declaring that Goodwife Morkis be duly pressed ’neath a stout oak door and thereafter her near lifeless body tossed upon flaming faggots and her ashes then moved to be stored in the kirk tower for six weeks, six days and six hours afore being scattered upon the village midden...I took up my lance, and pen.

My argument was simple. Is it right a male solicitor, from a governing body overseeing 200,650 people employed in social services, 85 per cent of whom are female, presents to an all-male panel numerous pages of an unrelated medical case concerning vaginal examinations? 

There’s a bunch of other questions that generates, like... how often does this happen?

Have you no cases from social work?

Have you anything non medical?

Have you nothing from Scotland?

Do you use this vaginal example when it’s a man being investigated?

Do you, for men, cite the case of Dr Ravi Kang Agarwal being struck off  for his botched penis enlargements? 

Why was gynaecology selected as one of your four preferred precedents?

You get the picture. 

I really did think these were valid questions that merited answering, but this is where womankind put me in my place.

First off Lorraine Gray, chief executive of the SSSC, was fine with the whole vagina thing. She attributed the bypassing of long-standing pronouncements on precedent by the most eminent of Law Lords to the SSSC's “professional judgement”. She dismissed the all-male panel issue, pointing out the SSSC doesn’t check the gender of its panel members and so couldn’t answer public enquiries as to how often this happened. If I wasn’t happy with those responses then I should raise an action in the sheriff court.

The convener and nine appointed members of the Scottish Social Services Council unanimously endorsed Ms Gray’s ruling on the surprise admission, and inclusion, of the vaginal examinations precedent by a male pursuer to an all-male panel. The council members included: Audrey Cowie with 30 years’ experience in the public sector including healthcare, clinical practice, operational management, education, regulation and quality; social work graduate Linda Lennie; and childcare expert Theresa Allison. That's a significant spread in background and experience.

Around this point, my questioning under Freedom of Information got me into bother and I was ruled “vexatious” owing to the “nature and number” of my requests, which I hasten to point out numbered considerably less than the 118 points the SSSC presented on vaginas. In defence, I never knew there was a limit on the number of questions you could ask under FOI, and my questions were always polite. Perhaps they didn’t all fall within the Freedom of Information framework but the SSSC had raised questions I thought, and still do think, deserve an answer.

Nevertheless, I now became tarred as one of those characters that you might remember who used to write continuously to their local paper. You know, the ones who insisted their letter went to the top of the column claiming the editor was a Stalinist and trying to turn the paper into Pravda by publishing the amount the tombola raised at a Labour Party coffee morning.

At this point, to carry on the honourable but misguided knight analogy, I realised my lance was now only tilting at windmills, so I passed it on to my wife.

She then took the issue to the next lady in line, Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Ms Agnew pointed out the precedent issue was one for the courts to ponder. Regarding the gender balance on the panel, she suggested we should raise it with an elected representative.

So the lance was duly passed, albeit briefly, to Willie Rennie, our gallant MSP, who galloped off across the Forth to Holyrood.

There the matter, now like a rusty old gauntlet, fell upon the desk of Maree Todd, Minister for Children and Young People. She pondered the gender issue, giving her assurance that the SSSC would have considered all factors before selecting an all-male panel. Ms Todd also said the SSSC was fully aware of its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.

Mrs Morkis, gratified at the response and the assurances, responded by asking for confirmation that the consideration of all these factors included the surprise introduction of vaginas.

Ms Todd’s office didn't actually provide that confirmation, instead passing that particular query on to Scotland’s chief social work adviser, Iona Colvin, the person representing 170,500 female workers in the social services’ sector. So what was her view on vaginal examinations and an all-male pursuer-panel combo?

Ms Colvin’s office, while not answering that specific topic, did take the time and trouble to explain what the SSSC was, how it operated as a non departmental public body and suggested we raise the matter with the SSSC and, if not satisfied with that, we could always go to the Ombudsman... or the courts.

Mrs Morkis then responded by stating that having gone through the SSSC process, reminded Ms Colvin's office that it was actually the Ombudsman who suggested we contact the government in the first place.

And that’s where the line of communication ended.

So, it would seem right through this thread of inquiry not one single woman feels it was inappropriate or misjudged or just plain wrong for a man to pull out an old gynaecological case to present to three other men, in front of other men, in order to make the case for a female Scottish social worker to be struck off  for professional misconduct. But it was wrong for a man to raise it as an issue.

Lesson learned, and I suppose I have to live with the fact that despite my good intentions I’ll be remembered in the ranks of the SSSC, and in some corridors of Holyrood, as the “vexatious vagina man”. 

Please follow: https://ssscandme.blogspot.com/

Picture: Manfred Richter from Pixabay