Scots carer issued warning for bizarre Facebook campaign against colleague that he asked to give him a “proper w**k”

A SCOTS carer has been issued a warning after his bizarre Facebook campaign against a colleague that he had asked to give him a “proper w**k”.

William Roy Agnew made the derogatory remark in June 2021 before making several posts on the social media site directed at the same colleague between August 2021 and January 2022.

Pictured: William Agnew. (C) Facebook.

Agnew, who was employed as a home carer at Constance Care in Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire at the time of his initial remark, had told the colleague, known only as ZZ, how a hand injury was preventing him from having a “proper w**k”.

He then proceeded to ask ZZ if she wanted to do it for him, before taking to Facebook to make several bizarre posts after his colleague complained about him, including claiming that he was “ex KGB”.

Agnew resigned from his position after his remark to his colleague, before taking to Facebook in August 2021 to make his first of a series of baffling posts.

He wrote: “I hear the staffing situation is now so bad that ZZ baby herself was out working the streets at the weekend. Was it really painful, ZZ?”

He followed this with a post in September 2021 that read: “ZZ, baby, I hear you’ve been pulling staff into the office and questioning them with a view to finding out where I get all my information.

“F**k me, I worked in Moscow for 18 months, I’m ex KGB. I’ve got more ‘informants’ than MI6. And they all carry a cyanide pill so don’t bother trying to torture them, they would swallow the cyanide rather than give me up.”

Following his colleague’s complaint to care watchdog the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), Agnew was informed of the intention to suspend his registration.

He would go on to post on Facebook that he had been “found guilty by a kangaroo court”, before telling the colleague that he “won’t lose too much sleep over it”.

In January 2022, following the successful suspension of his registration, Agnew would air his frustrations in a wild rant online.

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

“Maybe I shouldn’t have told them that I had absolutely no regrets about anything I posted using the fictitious name of C**tsdont Care.

“I didn’t bother asking for a hearing and I won’t bother appealing their decision. I’ve retired, ZZ baby, so it means f**k all to me.

“At least, through my actions, the public got to know what a shower of incompetents are employed at C**tsdont Care.

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

The SSSC launched an investigation into Agnew, which found that the carer’s fitness to practice was impaired.

They stated in their report: “Social service workers must communicate in an appropriate manner and treat colleagues with respect.

“They must not abuse or harm colleagues or behave, while in or outside work, in a way which would bring their suitability to work in social services into question.

“You made a sexual and derogatory remark to a colleague and posted potentially upsetting and intimidating messages relating to colleagues online. Your actions caused harm to your colleague.

“The actions are indicative of attitudinal issues and bring your suitability to work in social services into question.

“By posting messages relating to witnesses assisting the SSSC with its investigation, you risked intimidating witnesses and obstructing the SSSC’s investigation.

“Your behaviour is considered moderately serious. You caused harm to your colleague. The behaviour was prolonged and deliberate, demonstrating a pattern of behaviour.”

The SSSC panel found that Agnew had shown no remorse nor insight into the behaviour that he had displayed.

They stated: “You have not shown any insight or remorse for the behaviour and there remains a risk of repetition. If repeated, the behaviour has the potential to harm colleagues.

“There are public protection concerns and it is considered that a reasonable person, in possession of all the information, would consider the reputation of the profession damaged by your behaviour.

“While you are entitled to deny your actions, you also commented that you had no regrets about your posts.

“There is a clear pattern of behaviour demonstrated by the numerous comments and posts made over a prolonged period of time. Your actions caused significant distress to your colleague.”

The panel decided that a two-year warning was the most appropriate sanction.

They stated: “After referring to our Decisions Guidance, we decided the appropriate sanction is to place a warning on your registration for a period of two years.”