MY LAST EMAIL TO UNIVERSITY: Dear xxxxx, As specified in London Metropolitans policy a written report needs to be provided regarding concerns of a students fitness to practise. Then a student is invited to an exploratory meeting. Neither of these steps have been taken, yet you have already decided that I need to provide a letter from my GP. In your previous email you mentioned that you raised the issue of a letter from my GP only after I had mentioned that I slept up to 16 hours a day. However you already had a copy of the policy with you, to hand to me. Which appears that you pre-empted that you would be invoking it. I further clarified my point that this is due to my financial situation, as it is due to being unable to afford more than one meal a day, electricity and cigarettes. It is of a concern to me that you are pursuing this course of action in light of my previous emails, I have highlighted the fact that I feel that this is discriminatory. I point out that the Fitness to Practise policy also refers to attitudes, yet despite you witnessing a student discriminating against me on the grounds of my disability, when she stated that I would not be able to apply for social work jobs, you have not referred her to be questioned on her fitness to practise. The Equalities Act, 2010 clearly refers to disabled students being treated unfairly in comparison to their non disabled peers. Choosing this course of action is in direct contravention of this legislation. It is also of concern to me that you failed to mention in your notes of the meeting that Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx also stated that I should not have to provide a GPs letter. She is employed by London Metropolitan as a Disability and Dyslexia advisor, yet you are ignoring her input. This treatment is in direct opposition to anti-oppressive, anti-discriminatory and evidence based practise. It also fails to follow London Metropolitans own policy, which is in contrast to the PCF guidelines of contexts and organisations. Because you have failed to follow London Metropolitans policy and already decided the outcome of any reports, meetings or fitness to practise panels by requesting a letter from my doctor, I feel that any findings will be prejudiced; you have already requested a doctors letter without the prerequisite requirements. Therefore if a Fitness to Practise panel was to have my faith in its ability to be unbiased and fair, it would have to be conducted independently of London Metropolitan staff. This is a matter of principle to me, which I stated on the day of the meeting we had. I will challenge all discrimination and oppression when I encounter it, which as a social work student it is my duty to do. Since you raised this issue I have been supported by my manager at xxxxxxx xxxx, who has offered to write me a reference to support my fitness to practise. As you are aware, xxxxx xxxxxx, the centre manager, was my practice educator whilst I was on my first placement. She has since employed me on a part time basis. The other staff and students have also said they would support me in this. However, I informed them that as I feel that I should not have to provide any further evidence, I would decline their references at this point on a matter of principle. Your continued pursuit of this course of action, contrary to legislation and university policy is harassment. I reiterate, I will not be providing a GPs letter for the following reasons: 1. It is discrimination, oppressive and harassment. 2. I am covered by my GSCC fitness to practise application 3. You have not invoked the procedures against a student who discriminated against me in your presence. 4. I have provided a satisfactory explanation of my sleeping habits. 5. You are acting outside your power of authority. 6. I have been open and honest about my health and disabilities; any symptoms of these health or disability issues are to be expected and is therefore not new information. 7. I fail to see how sleep would put my fitness to practise in question anyway. I do not sleep outside my home, for example at university, on placement or in my paid employment. 8. You have circumvented London Metropolitans own Fitness to Practise procedures to fit your own agenda. Nick Wild
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015