Scots carer issued warning for weird Fb marketing campaign in opposition to colleague that he requested to present him a “correct w**ok”

A SCOTS carer has been issued a warning after his weird Fb marketing campaign in opposition to a colleague that he had requested to present him a “correct w**ok”.

William Roy Agnew made the derogatory comment in June 2021 earlier than making a number of posts on the social media web site directed on the identical colleague between August 2021 and January 2022.

William Agnew.
Pictured: William Agnew. (C) Fb.

Agnew, who was employed as a house carer at Constance Care in Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire on the time of his preliminary comment, had informed the colleague, identified solely as ZZ, how a hand harm was stopping him from having a “correct w**ok”.

He then proceeded to ask ZZ if she wished to do it for him, earlier than taking to Fb to make a number of weird posts after his colleague complained about him, together with claiming that he was “ex KGB”.

Agnew resigned from his place after his comment to his colleague, earlier than taking to Fb in August 2021 to make his first of a collection of baffling posts.

He wrote: “I hear the staffing scenario is now so dangerous that ZZ child herself was out working the streets on the weekend. Was it actually painful, ZZ?”

He adopted this with a submit in September 2021 that learn: “ZZ, child, I hear you’ve been pulling employees into the workplace and questioning them with a view to discovering out the place I get all my info.

“F**ok me, I labored in Moscow for 18 months, I’m ex KGB. I’ve bought extra ‘informants’ than MI6. They usually all carry a cyanide capsule so don’t trouble attempting to torture them, they might swallow the cyanide fairly than give me up.”

Following his colleague’s grievance to care watchdog the Scottish Social Providers Council (SSSC), Agnew was knowledgeable of the intention to droop his registration.

He would go on to submit on Fb that he had been “discovered responsible by a kangaroo courtroom”, earlier than telling the colleague that he “gained’t lose an excessive amount of sleep over it”.

In January 2022, following the profitable suspension of his registration, Agnew would air his frustrations in a wild rant on-line.

He wrote: “Effectively, ZZ’s groundless allegations succeeded in persuading the SSSC to droop my registration.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have informed them that I had completely no regrets about something I posted utilizing the fictional title of C**tsdont Care.

“I didn’t trouble asking for a listening to and I gained’t trouble interesting their resolution. I’ve retired, ZZ child, so it means f**ok all to me.

“At the very least, via my actions, the general public bought to know what a bathe of incompetents are employed at C**tsdont Care.

“Give my regards to your associates, XX and WW and don’t neglect YY, the speaking cow.”

The SSSC launched an investigation into Agnew, which discovered that the carer’s health to observe was impaired.

They said of their report: “Social service employees should talk in an acceptable method and deal with colleagues with respect.

“They have to not abuse or hurt colleagues or behave, whereas in or exterior work, in a method which might carry their suitability to work in social providers into query.

“You made a sexual and derogatory comment to a colleague and posted probably upsetting and intimidating messages regarding colleagues on-line. Your actions precipitated hurt to your colleague.

“The actions are indicative of attitudinal points and convey your suitability to work in social providers into query.

“By posting messages regarding witnesses helping the SSSC with its investigation, you risked intimidating witnesses and obstructing the SSSC’s investigation.

“Your behaviour is taken into account reasonably critical. You precipitated hurt to your colleague. The behaviour was extended and deliberate, demonstrating a sample of behaviour.”

The SSSC panel discovered that Agnew had proven no regret nor perception into the behaviour that he had displayed.

They said: “You haven’t proven any perception or regret for the behaviour and there stays a threat of repetition. If repeated, the behaviour has the potential to hurt colleagues.

“There are public safety issues and it’s thought-about {that a} affordable individual, in possession of all the data, would take into account the fame of the career broken by your behaviour.

“If you are entitled to disclaim your actions, you additionally commented that you just had no regrets about your posts.

“There’s a clear sample of behaviour demonstrated by the quite a few feedback and posts remodeled a chronic time frame. Your actions precipitated vital misery to your colleague.”

The panel determined {that a} two-year warning was essentially the most acceptable sanction.

They said: “After referring to our Choices Steerage, we determined the suitable sanction is to put a warning in your registration for a interval of two years.”