'High bar' for taking fitness to practise action in relation to social workers' online posts, says regulator

There is a "high bar" for interfering with social workers' freedom of expression online in fitness to practise (FtP) decisions, the regulator has said.

FtP decision makers need to balance social workers' human rights with practitioners' responsibilities to uphold Social Work England's professional standards, when considering concerns about online communications, it said.

The comments came in draft guidance for Social Work England triage staff and case examiners and its hearing panel adjudicators, all of whom are responsible for making decisions in FtP cases.

The proposed advice has been issued for consultation alongside draft guidance for social workers themselves on how to ensure they meet the regulator's professional standards when communicating online.

Standards social workers must uphold

The key professional standard relating to online communications is 5.6, which states that social workers must not "use technology, social media or other forms of electronic communication unlawfully, unethically, or in a way that brings the profession into disrepute".

However, the draft guidance for FtP decision makers states that other standards are relevant, including those that require social workers to:

• Respect and promote the human rights, views, wishes and feelings of those they support (1.2).
• Recognise differences across diverse communities and challenge the impact of disadvantage and discrimination (1.5).
• Promote social justice and help confront and resolve issues of inequality and inclusion (1.6).
• Respect and maintain people’s dignity and privacy (2.2).
• Treat information about people with sensitivity and handle confidential information in line with the law (2.6).
• Recognise where there may be bias in decision making and address issues that arise from ethical dilemmas, conflicting information or differing professional decisions (3.7).
• Not abuse, neglect, discriminate, exploit or harm anyone, or condone this by others (5.1).
• Not behave in a way that would bring into question their suitability to work as a social worker while at work, or outside of work (5.2).
• Report allegations of harm and challenge and report exploitation and any dangerous, abusive or discriminatory behaviour or practice (6.1).

Human rights considerations

The draft guidance says FtP decision makers need to balance these responsibilities against social workers' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),  in cases involving online communications, citing the following as relevant:

• Article 8: respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.
• Article 9: freedom of thought, belief and religion.
• Article 10: freedom of expression.
• Article 17: prohibition on acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms under the ECHR.

Is content inappropriate or offensive?

Under the draft guidance, FtP decision makers should first assess whether the content communicated by the practitioner online was, objectively, "offensive or inappropriate".

In making this assessment, decision makers should consider if practitioners have shared the confidential details of a person they support, engaged in harassment, bullying or threatening behaviour, used offensive language, including inciting violence, or directed comments against people with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

The nine protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion/belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Conduct would likely be considered more offensive or inappropriate if directed towards a person with a protected characteristic, because of or related to that characteristic, than where this is not the case.

Protected beliefs

However, the draft guidance states that decision makers should consider whether any comments made online by a social worker were manifestations of a belief that is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Social Work England and Westminster City Council were found to have harassed social worker Rachel Meade on account of her protected gender critical beliefs, through their fitness to practise and disciplinary processes, respectively, by an employment tribunal last year.

The draft guidance says decision makers should also appropriately balance the potential validity of differing views on an issue and "not just accept a complaint from one side of a legitimate divisive debate at face value".

Is social worker's fitness to practise in question?

If the decision maker concludes that the content is offensive or inappropriate, they should then consider whether the social worker's conduct calls into question their fitness to practise, by considering the following factors:

1. The extent to which the content was supported or endorsed by the social worker, for example, where they have reposted, acknowledged or been tagged in another's post.
2. The extent to which any views were expressed in the social worker's professional or private capacity, including with reference to whether they were identifiable as a social worker from their posts or used their social worker status to give credibility to the comments.
3. Where the content was shared privately, the extent to which it could impact on the practitioner's ability to engage with a range of service users with different backgrounds or the confidence service users may have in engaging with them.
4. The extent to which the comments were in the public domain, with public confidence in the profession more likely to be undermined the more public the sharing of the content.
5. The extent to which the content shared reflects on the person's ability to practise as a social worker, including with reference to the risk of harm to service users, colleagues or the social worker's professional life and the closeness of the link between the comments and the social worker's practice.

'High bar for interfering with freedom of expression'

On the latter point, the regulator stressed that there was a "high bar" for interfering with a social worker's right to freedom of expression.

"If there isn’t a close link to the social worker’s practice, or it relates to their private life, it is less likely that this would raise concerns about a social worker’s fitness to practise," says the draft guidance.

"Any interference [in a social worker's private life] must be justified to explain how it impacts on public confidence in the profession and professional standards, and how the public interest outweighs the social worker’s right to a private life. If there is no public protection risk, there is a high bar to find that someone’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds alone."

Even where content was "seriously offensive", FtP decision makers should consider the facts to establish "whether the speech has gone beyond the latitude allowed for the expression of a political belief".

The guidance adds that while a pattern of incidents was more likely to demonstrate risk to service users than an isolated case, the latter may justify action if it suggests "a deep-seated attitudinal and character flaw or issue", such as holding racially abusive views.

Principles for social workers on communicating online

The separate draft guidance for social workers sets out four principles for communicating online:

1. Security - this includes never posting confidential or identifiable information about the people you or colleagues support, reviewing privacy settings regularly so communications are only available to appropriate people and understanding that content posted anonymously or under a pseudonym may be traced back to you.
2. Accountability - this involves not posting anything which might damage confidence in your work or in the profession, understanding that content posted before your registration may be considered in fitness to practise cases and knowing what to do if there is a data breach.
3. Using the right tools - this encompasses understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different tools so you can choose the appropriate one for the type of communication concerned and the needs of the people you are communicating with.
4. Maintaining boundaries - this includes knowing whether you are identifiable as a social worker from the content you communicate or from your wider online presence, and considering the impact of being identified on how people interpret your content and on trust in the wider profession.

Where practitioners are unsure about what to do, Social Work England advises that they consult their employer's relevant policies or seek guidance from colleagues or their manager.

Consultation process

The consultation on the two pieces of guidance ends on 29 October 2025.

You can respond by completing this online survey or emailing consultation.responses@socialworkengland.org.uk